The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Reinvestment and Reform Initiative

Mr Jim Wilson: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the reinvestment and reform initiative.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I understand that the statement is being photocopied now. It should be available shortly. I hope that copies can be distributed to Members while the Deputy First Minister and I are speaking, rather than being left outside the Chamber. The Deputy First Minister would also like a copy.
With permission, the Deputy First Minister and I would like to make a statement on how we are starting to implement the reinvestment and reform initiative. Through this first phase of the initiative we can target £200 million on key aspects of the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. We are adding a further £70 million to that sum from the infrastructure Executive programme fund. Over the next two years that unprecedented package will significantly accelerate major investment. In key areas we will start to address the investment deficit that developed under direct rule.
When we launched the reinvestment and reform initiative on 2 May 2002, we explained that this was the reason that we had secured a unique package of measures through negotiations with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Our purpose was clear. Only if we can address the basic infrastructure can we provide the quality of services that a vibrant economy and a fair society needs. Only with well-designed hospitals can well-trained doctors and nurses provide the quality of care that is needed. Only if there is an end to poor-quality classrooms can we provide the environment for good-quality teaching and learning. Only when crumbling or inadequate water and sewerage systems are replaced can we be confident that Northern Ireland has safe water and a clean environment.
The need to improve our infrastructure unites all Assembly parties and all our people. We agree that improved infrastructure means improved public services and improved conditions for economic growth. That aim is at the core of the Programme for Government and has been central to our approach from the outset.
The Executive introduced the Executive programme fund for infrastructure and capital renewal with that very purpose in mind. We decided from the outset that we had to protect a significant part of the Budget specifically for investment. Over successive Budgets we have sought to increase allocations in that area, seeking to start gradually to turn the tanker of public expenditure in the right direction. We realised, however, that to achieve our ambitions for new investment we had to find ways of doing and thinking outside the traditional box.
A step change in investment must be accompanied by a radical reappraisal of the problem and a search for new solutions. That is why, in the first phase of devolution, we embarked on a series of related reviews to enable us to set a new strategic approach to the financing and delivery of public services. The rating system is undergoing a fundamental examination, and alternative sources of funding are being considered.
At the same time, through the review of public administration, we want a thorough review of the structures for service delivery. That is why we have set in train the most wide-ranging review of the needs and effectiveness of the main expenditure programmes that has ever been conducted in Northern Ireland. It will be the focus of debate in the Executive in the coming weeks. We hope that the evaluations will also play a central role in the Assembly’s consideration of the next Budget and Programme for Government.
In short, there are four key aspects to the Executive’s search for improved public services: alternative sources of finance; rating policy; public administration; and the needs and effectiveness studies. Their common aim is to enable us to provide high-quality public services and enhanced public assets. Some will take time; others can, and should, proceed sooner, as it is clear that early action is needed. It is essential to have a clear strategy and to make a start. The reinvestment and reform initiative lets us make much more substantial progress.
On 7 May we set out the core elements of the initiative for the Assembly and explained that £200 million would be available for investment over the next two years, to which we have now added £70 million from the infrastructure Executive programme fund. There will also be a new borrowing power for the longer term, the transfer of some strategic military and security assets, the creation of a new strategic investment body and a major programme of public-sector reform to secure greater expertise and effectiveness.
We are announcing the detail of the first element of the initiative today. The initiative is an integrated one, so before we describe the allocations in detail, I will remind Members of the key aspects. An Executive subcommittee has been established to oversee the initiative to ensure that the reform is effectively co-ordinated. Central to it is a new mechanism to help individual Ministers, and the Executive as a whole, to plan the organisation and financing of the new capital investment.
The new strategic investment body, which draws together expertise in finance and project planning and delivery from the public and private sectors, will be the central resource to drive through a new way of doing public business. Its mission will be to ensure that strategic infrastructure is much more effectively planned and delivered than before, using all available resources and means.
Much work will be needed to plan and resource the strategic investment body, and progress has been made. A project board has been established, whose members were nominated by all four parties in the Executive, to advise on the remit and status of the body. It has already met three times and will make progress over the coming months. It has already examined the approach taken to those issues in London and Dublin.
The Deputy First Minister and I have also agreed to exchange information and experience on private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships (PPPs) with the Scottish Executive. We want to be innovative and work out an approach that fits our unique context. However, we have been glad of the opportunities to learn from progress made elsewhere so that we avoid reinventing when we want to be reinvesting.
Discussions are continuing with the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office on the transfer of sites. Work on developing proposals for the major Ebrington site has begun already. The Deputy First Minister and I have established a partnership and regeneration panel that will involve central and local government and the community and business sectors to develop proposals for the Executive’s consideration.
Local experience and expertise will advise the Executive on how best to use this strategically important asset. Community and business groups will also be consulted and involved in developing ideas for the use of the other sites through an approach of not just joined-up but joined-in government. We shall discuss shortly with the relevant Ministers the best legal and administrative framework for realising the potential of the strategic sites. Thinking outside the box secured the sites for the Executive; thinking outside the box will maximise their benefit to all.
The initiative is about reform. We cannot invest in infrastructure if we do not improve service delivery continually. To do otherwise would be to complete only half of the job. Major initiatives, such as the review of public administration, will help us to drive change at a high level. So, too, will our use of public service agreements and service delivery agreements, which will put a spotlight on what we get for our resources. Central to that will be the strategic investment body, which will advise us on the best and most efficient use of resources. However, we expect Ministers to ensure reform in their Departments and agencies alongside the investment that we announce today.
In this statement, we want to focus on the short-term element of the package. From the beginning of our discussions with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, we said that we had to make an early start. Now, just two months after the initial launch, the Executive have decided what should be done over the next two years. In preparing the package of measures, we built on proposals identified by Departments.
Originally, we invited bids for allocations out of the infrastructure element of the Executive programme funds. After the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative, we asked Departments for further ideas for action in the short term. We made it clear that those should address some of our most urgent infrastructure needs, but without pre-empting the role of the strategic investment body. Details of the 29 programmes or projects that the Executive support are set out in the table attached to the copies of our statement which, I hope, have been provided for Members.
A list of further projects will be identified for consideration by the Executive in the autumn, taking account of the advice of the project board for the strategic investment body. We are, however, committing ourselves to an approach through the reinvestment and reform initiative, which will systematically address our problems in a clear, integrated and transparent way. Many needs cannot be met today, such is the extent of the backlog faced by society, and Committees will be aware of other proposals that Departments have lodged.
The total value of the projects and programmes that are contained, wholly or in part, in the package is £510 million, including contributions from private funds and the mainstream departmental budgets. The new money committed by the Executive in today’s announcement is the £270 million that will fall in the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The implications of the decisions for later years, when some of those projects will be completed, will be dealt with in future Budget rounds. In turn, that will mean that other projects, which would otherwise have had to wait longer for funding, will be accelerated.
I shall now explain the main actions that we have decided to initiate to address the key weaknesses of our infrastructure. The cancer centre is the most urgently needed major project in the Health Service. It has been a top priority for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the departmental Committee. Through the centre we can combat more effectively one of the major causes of premature death here, saving many more lives than we have been able to do to date. We are pleased to confirm that the project will now proceed immediately. The funds are available, and the final business case has been proved.
The need to invest in our roads and transport networks is well known and understood by all Members as a key objective of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Today the Executive can confirm funding for strategic road improvement by making a start on the widening of the M1 approach to Belfast. That will be recognised as a highly worthwhile improvement by the many who have to use the route daily. Secondly, there will be structural maintenance of the major routes on the regional strategic transportation network, such as the A8 from Belfast to Larne, the A5 at Strabane, the A32 from Omagh to Enniskillen and the A28 at Newry.
A further £14 million has been allocated for structural maintenance across a wider range of smaller schemes. Those allocations are over and above the £40 million that the Executive committed last year to specific actions on the major trans-European network route that runs between Larne, Belfast and the border south of Newry. Although most of that funding falls outside the time frame of this package, we reaffirm the commitments that will make action possible on those major developments.
The proposed regional transportation strategy also highlights the need for major investment in public transport. We want to determine whether new and innovative approaches to funding are possible in that sector and, in order to return with new ideas in the autumn, we want to work with the Department for Regional Development. However, to address the issue, £5 million has been allocated to enable the purchase of 40 buses.
One area in which we inherited serious difficulties is the water and sewerage infrastructure. There is an investment backlog of several billion pounds there, with no actions having been taken on some structures for many decades. To avoid increased risk to health and the environment, and to ensure that housing and commercial development can proceed where it is needed, we must address those problems.
The package includes £23 million of additional capital investment in that sector. There will be action to improve the water mains and sewers in the following areas, which were identified by the Minister for Regional Development: Portadown, Cookstown, Belfast, west of Newry, north Antrim and Ballymena. Those actions are on top of the programme that is funded from the Department for Regional Development’s core budget, which accounts for a range of schemes that are being implemented. It is in exactly that type of area, in which we must invest for the longer term for generations ahead, that the borrowing power that we achieved under the reinvestment and reform initiative will play such a significant role.
As Members know, we get nothing, and will get nothing, for water under the Barnett formula. Its cost will increasingly press on other services unless we can find new ways of funding investment to make that industry fully efficient and a resource for the future.
Last year, the Executive decided to support the proposals for the extension of the gas supply network through pipelines between Larne and the north-west and from the South to link with the existing network. That will greatly improve the range and security of supply. It will benefit many by widening choice and energy supply and will also make it possible for investment in the new Coolkeeragh Power Station to proceed. Today, we confirm that £12 million of the grant aid that the Executive have agreed to pay towards the pipeline project will come from the reinvestment and reform initiative.
On housing, we are considering the regional infrastructure for energy and addressing the specific problem of fuel poverty. The initiative will make it possible for the Housing Executive to replace outdated heating systems in 2,000 homes. Moreover, 75 new accommodation units will be provided to ensure that action can be taken to address the problem of homelessness. Action on homelessness and fuel poverty will show that the infrastructure package has a clear TSN dimension.

Mr Jim Wilson: A Member said that he wished to raise a point of order about the non-availability of the statement at the commencement of business. I told him that I would not take a point of order during the statement. However, I hope that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have noted that the statement was not circulated until six minutes into the First Minister’s delivery. The Speaker dealt with the matter yesterday, and I am dealing with it again today. I hope that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will take note that, although there is no requirement in Standing Orders for Members to be provided with statements in advance, it is reasonable to expect a statement on such an important issue to be available before it is delivered in the Chamber.

Mr Mark Durkan: Your point is well made, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it has been well taken. Yet again, I apologise for the delay, which was partly to ensure that the First Minister and I did not repeat elements of the statement. It is more difficult to produce than a statement from a Department that has only one Minister.
Before I detail some of the specific projects, I will focus on our strategic approach to deciding how to invest. I said at the launch of the reinvestment and reform initiative that
"Devolution is not a theme park for soft options. It must be a building ground for new prosperity, a growing field for social transformation, a learning zone for new ways of providing, and providing for, public service".
I also said:
"We have to harness the skills of our public sector, the will of our voluntary sector, and the drive of our private sector to deliver the dynamic development we seek. The enterprise and expertise of the social partners, which has done so much to drive regeneration and reconciliation, can join government endeavour to change the regional landscape."
I stress that the initiative includes major investments that are designed to touch on people’s social needs and improve their quality of life. The social inclusion dimension receives a full and fair share of our energy and resources. That dimension includes: health and social care; the fundamental needs of our schoolchildren; housing; and help with heating, which is often an anxiety for the elderly and other householders.
The Executive intend to set a short- and longer-term strategic direction for developing infrastructure. The project board and the Executive subcommittee will assist them in that work. The funds that are available for this year and the next will enable us to make an immediate start on the new strategic approach to infrastructure development.
In recent years, the Executive have agreed that several areas, especially health, education, transport, water and sewerage, suffer as a result of major infrastructure problems. The PPP working group examined the extent of those needs and their implications for our overall expenditure, and they are being considered in the Financing our Future consultation.
Recently, the Executive have been examining in detail our need to invest in the Water Service. We have also been considering the Department for Regional Development’s proposed regional transportation strategy, and we have agreed that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s proposals on acute hospitals should be put forward for consultation also.
In that context, we have concluded that we now need a major set of investments that focus primarily on those areas. That approach fits in with the priorities that we identified in the Programme for Government and the Budget, which we want to refine in the coming year. We must also ensure that all new options are explored creatively and urgently so that people can benefit from better services and facilities. The fundamental idea behind the reinvestment and reform initiative is that it comprises investment, and there is no question of our simply topping up ordinary programmes.
It is vital for the initiative to make a strategic difference in addressing the infrastructure deficit and have an impact on the major needs that we identified. It must also demonstrate our commitment to reforming the delivery of public services. The reform agenda will be integral to the initiative, and appropriate action to progress reform must be an important element alongside all allocations from the new reinvestment and reform initiative funds.
It would be wrong to commit ourselves to financing projects in a new way, using the £125 million loan that we secured from the reinvestment and reform initiative, without ensuring that appropriate action is taken to develop new expertise and a thorough approach to planning and management that will mark a break with the past. We can make a start now, and we must start as we mean to go on. However, I emphasise that some aspects of change, and a substantial leverage of investment from alternative sources, will take longer to acquire and will depend on the development and introduction of the strategic investment body.
As well as the cancer centre, already mentioned by the First Minister, there is investment in essential capacity at six hospitals across Northern Ireland — Antrim Area Hospital, Craigavon Area Hospital, the Mater Hospital, Holywell Hospital, Musgrave Park Hospital and the Erne Hospital. The project at Antrim Area Hospital will include a local cancer unit, which will complement the main cancer centre as part of the strategic approach to addressing that very important issue. That investment will ensure that care of cancer patients in Northern Ireland will be improved to the standards achieved in the best EU countries.
There will also be specific projects at five other hospitals — Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Stradreagh Hospital, Daisy Hill Hospital, Belfast City Hospital and Muckamore Abbey Hospital — and action to upgrade equipment at regional centres will improve services for all parts of the region. This is a major step up in investment in the Health Service estate and is designed to begin the reinvestment that is so badly needed. In total, £110 million from the total of £270 million is going to Health Service projects. When we add the further costs to be incurred beyond 2003-04, the full value of the investment in health will be £167 million, which includes investment of £58 million in the cancer centre.
Today we can announce that funding will be available for three major new school schemes at St Patrick’s College, Dungannon; Fivemiletown High School and St Fanchea’s College, Enniskillen. Funding will also be available for the final phases at three other schools — Regent House School, Meánscoil Feirste and Thornhill College. Together with site purchases for future developments planned for a further two schools — Clondermot/ Faughan Valley High School and Abbey Christian Brothers’ Grammar School, Newry — the full value of this group of projects is £56·7 million. Three special schools will also be built at a cost of £11·9 million, two of which, Cedar Lodge and Harberton, will be in Belfast and the other, Roddensvale, in Larne. That will address the needs of pupils with learning difficulties and reduce the special schools major works backlog by one third. We are also committing £4 million to the integrated sector to enable the Department of Education to make timely and important investment there.
These major schools projects are underpinned by a commitment of £6 million to tackle the needs of 75 small rural schools, a quarter of all such schools. The work will involve replacing temporary accommodation and upgrading toilet facilities. The amounts will be allocated across the region where they are needed most.
We are also allocating £15 million to replace 20% of mobile classrooms with new accommodation. That will provide action on 200 classrooms in the first year and 600 classrooms in the second year. Teachers and pupils deserve good accommodation in which to teach and learn. I am delighted that we have made such a significant step forward in this package.
Investment in lifelong learning is vital for the future of society and for economic development. We are pleased to confirm the Executive’s support for a further programme of investment in university research infrastructure, which will be matched, pound for pound, by a private donor organisation.
Investment in further education colleges is also being provided — £3·2 million in Limavady College of Further and Higher Education and £3·5 million in Fermanagh College of Further Education. Thus further and higher education will receive a total of £12·7 million from the initiative immediately, and total investment will be £56·7 million over the full period of the support programme for university research (SPUR).
To complete the package, the Executive have decided to provide £4·4 million to address the problem of silt and mud in the inner harbour at Kilkeel, which has prevented the regulator from granting the Fisheries Harbour Authority a licence for sea disposal. That will also support investment in the continued existence and safety of Kilkeel harbour and in the extensive structural repair of the South Pier and Windy Gap entrance.
Finally, it will enable the replacement of the slipway winch and at least one cradle, required for health and safety reasons.
We intend to use all of the £125 million of available borrowing in the period up to March 2004 alongside our mainstream public expenditure provision and the Executive programme funds. We will adhere to the principle that we should borrow to invest, not to support current spending programmes. Furthermore, we will not take out loans that are repayable over periods beyond the useful life of the assets that we are procuring.
The projects that we are supporting represent a balanced investment package that will address some of the most pressing infrastructure needs in schools, the Health Service, roads, and water and sewerage services. The proposed measures will also enable us to address problems such as homelessness and fuel poverty. The measures confirm and underline the clear value and logic of the approach that we began through the Executive programme funds. That approach is already bearing fruit. All of these schemes are high priorities in the Programme for Government and, when delivered, should lead to real and visible improvements in the quality of public services. We are making a positive start on a strategically driven infrastructure programme, based on the priorities that we have already agreed.
Our proposals are also designed to support projects that can be implemented quickly, although this does not override our commitment to ensuring that the highest value-for-money standards are maintained. No projects will be allowed to incur expenditure until the economic appraisal process has been satisfactorily completed. We assure the Assembly that the projects selected for funding will be subject to rigorous analysis and scrutiny before final allocations are made. Let us be clear that the allocations are not about spending for the sake of it simply because we now have additional resources.
In some instances, the allocations create ongoing commitments to complete certain projects, such as the cancer centre. These have to be confirmed in the 2002 Budget. However, much higher costs arise for certain projects in 2004-05 and beyond. In those cases, the Assembly will be able to consider the need for any future investment in the Budget process later this year and as part of the longer-term allocations from the reinvestment and reform initiative.
We will also be looking to the strategic investment body to help us to deliver infrastructure programmes in a unique and strategic way. The new body will enable us to use the best mix of different sources of financing and procurement methods. That will make possible a more strategic approach to investment and procurement than could be achieved if it were left simply to the resources and devices of Departments, some of which are too small to develop and maintain the kind of expertise and drive that is needed to make this happen on a large scale.
To ensure that the momentum of the initiative is sustained we will ask the Departments and the Executive to develop a further range of ideas for the next stage. In the meantime, we will continue to consider alternative sources of funding. The idea is that the project board and the strategic investment body should be able to help the Executive to examine and identify models and optimum funding sources. In that way we will be better able to respond to the range of ideas that will be put forward for the fuller development of the reinvestment and reform initiative.
The investments under the short-term element of the reinvestment and reform initiative are a precursor to the potential of the longer-term provisions. The agreement has given us new relationships and responsibilities. The initiative offers new resources which, when combined with new resolve, can create new realities. Today’s welcome announcements are really a trailer for the quantity and quality of the public service investment we can achieve under the reinvestment and reform initiative in future. We can move from complaining about what we cannot do to planning what we can do, and from lamenting what has not been done to implementing what must be done.
Some Members have expressed fears about the reinvestment and reform initiative’s borrowing powers, despite the fact that they have been advocating public bonds. Borrowing for strategic investment is not about burdening our children; it is about providing for them.
Some fret about responsible and affordable borrowing as imposing a debt on others to come, but we cannot pass on the investment deficit and dilapidated public estate that we have inherited. Indeed, we would be compounding the strategic negligence for which we have been criticising others.
If we believe in public services, public assets and public expenditure, then we should see strategic borrowing, funded by public revenue, as a form of solidarity between generations. It is not just about reversing the underinvestment in infrastructure and the public service fabric for this generation, but about fast-forwarding for the next generation.
There has been much comment in recent days about underspending. Part of our thinking in establishing the strategic investment body was a recognition that we could not rely on traditional forms of expenditure management to drive and deliver the necessary increased investment levels.
More importantly, we want to stress that it is long- term underinvestment, rather than the ephemeral impression of underspending, that is the real problem. It costs us, as a community and a region, in terms of socially important public services and economic competitiveness. We want to break the cycle of underinvestment in a way that will not compound the underspending problem. Hence, we have the reinvestment and reform initiative.
These first fruits indicate our commitment in first establishing the Executive programme funds and then developing the reinvestment and reform initiative to articulate our strategic priorities through more strategic and better-targeted public spending. We stressed that the strategic investment would not be confined to the hard infrastructure of roads, transport, water, sewerage, gas or telecommunications, but apply also to the soft infrastructure of our public services estates in health, schools, colleges, social services, and even housing support. The range and balance of investments afforded and supported in the package announced today are a positive example of how social inclusion and strategic investment can be, as I have always believed, two sides of the public spending coin. We commend these actions to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has today announced a range of projects across most Departments that, hitherto, the Departments were not able to undertake. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that there should be no doubt as to where credit lies for the achievements of these socially worthwhile investments?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I agree entirely with the Member about the value of these investments, and, indeed, the difficulty, or perhaps the impossibility, of tackling these in the normal way.
The point about water has not been fully appreciated. There will be no additional money through the Barnett formula for water in Northern Ireland, because there are no increases in expenditure in GB on that subject at all. We know that there is a huge deficit in investment there, and we would have no prospect of coping with that problem simply through squeezing out money from each year’s public expenditure round.
Only by coming outside the normal process and establishing this borrowing power — both short-term and long-term — would it ever have been possible to contemplate raising the money to deal with this issue. This has been an initiative that the Deputy First Minister and I have undertaken, with the support of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and it gives us an opportunity to tackle these issues. It will mean some hard choices having to be made on how we carry this matter through, but at least we have now made a clear start, which I hope will be welcomed by all Members.

Dr Joe Hendron: I warmly welcome the long-awaited go-ahead for the funding of the new cancer centre, which is the key missing link to a fully integrated cancer service for the people of Northern Ireland. I think of all the cancer patients who have been waiting — people such as Pat McGreevy, who we heard this morning on radio — and of the Ulster Cancer Foundation; Action Cancer; and Prof Paddy Johnston in the City Hospital.
My question relates directly to the significant annual revenue costs of the centre. Its capital costs have already escalated from £32 million to £57 million. The new centre must be properly staffed with expert cancer clinicians and nurses and be equipped with the latest technology. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s inquiry into cancer services estimated that the revenue costs would be as high as £10·5 million a year. Therefore, will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister give the Assembly a commitment that the necessary funds will be secured to support the increase in staffing and equipment costs?

Mr Mark Durkan: I acknowledge the Member’s welcome on behalf of the Committee for this announcement. I appreciate the direct and particular interest that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has taken in the cancer centre as part of the delivery of the regional cancer strategy, which was tabled many years ago and which we have all needed to see delivered.
The Committee first focused on the idea of targeting Executive programme funds or other moneys outside the departmental mainstream budget after it had seen the Executive make commitments to, for example, the gas pipeline and the road from Larne to Newry out of the Executive programme funds. The advances made with this vital care centre show the value of the concept of the Executive programme funds, now widened out into the broader concept of the reinvestment and reform initiative. These are enabling provisions that we have made. We have built an extension to the devolution house with this initiative. We have created other possibilities for ourselves so that initiatives that were not developing through our normal, confined constraints can now do so.
The announcement made today is about capital investment and use of borrowing power. I said in the statement that we would not be using borrowing power to fund running costs; that is not what we should use borrowing power for. It is for strategic capital investment. We do not intend to provide a centre that will not be properly equipped or staffed. The regional cancer centre’s equipment will be a call on capital investment for the future. That will be pursued through all the proper budgetary channels. Other costs will have to be met and absorbed through appropriate Budget provision.
We have now broken the cycle of frustration around the cancer centre. I recognise the commitment of many interest groups, patient advocacy groups and professionals such as Paddy Johnston and Roy Spence. The Executive have now been able to deliver on that capital investment and provide a platform for all the professional commitment and all the commitment of departmental resources that will be needed to support that centre and deliver the strategy.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I welcome that fact that at long last the deficiencies of Fivemiletown High School have been acknowledged. That school should have been replaced long ago, but I suppose it is better late than never.
In relation to the allocation of funding for rural primary schools, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have said they are allocating £15 million to replace 20% of mobile classrooms with new accommodation. A school in my constituency, Carntall Primary School in Clogher, cannot get a mobile classroom to accommodate its growth. The school has approximately 78 pupils, and it has been told it cannot exceed 80 pupils. However, it will not qualify for additional accommodation until it has 85 pupils.
Does OFMDFM see such schools benefiting from the announcement today? Will this be left to the Department of Education, which is fully aware of the inadequacies that exist there, or will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister give a directive on schools such as Carntall Primary School, which has been in need for years?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I thank the Member for his welcome of resources for Fivemiletown High School. However, his question relates to small rural primary schools and to the provision of money for mobile classrooms.
Departments handle financial details. When the Member was a Minister he was properly jealous of that position, and he would appreciate that people who were then his ministerial Colleagues would have the same approach to this issue. The money that has been provided for the removal of mobile classrooms will reduce the existing number by 20%. That is a huge reduction.
The allocation of provision for small rural primary schools will improve accommodation at 75 schools, one quarter of which have fewer than 100 pupils. Small rural schools are under consideration, and allocation details will be announced in due course.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the extra funding for all areas. I congratulate Ministers Bairbre de Brún, Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson for ensuring that their areas of responsibility were prioritised. I also welcome the long-awaited funding for St Fanchea’s College, Enniskillen.
Kilkeel harbour has been given £4·4 million, but there is no further allocation for agriculture. If agriculture is to remain a low priority or to have no priority — apart from departmental overspend — when will the Executive allocate funding to tackle major deficits in on-farm infrastructure and restructure?

Mr Mark Durkan: The statement concerns strategic capital investment, infrastructure and the fabric of the public service estate. These are priorities that were determined by the Executive, following recommendations from myself when I was Minister of Finance and Personnel and from the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Our recommendations were to focus on health, education and transport. To credit a Minister who did not attend the Executive with being part of that prioritisation process shows what sort of warped point-scoring goes on with some Members of Sinn Féin.
The First Minister and I, together with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, undertook the reinvestment and reform initiative and promoted it in negotiations with the British Government. In private negotiations with the Treasury and the Prime Minister we made it clear that issues such as the cancer centre were exactly what we had in mind in our call for a short-term pillar of expenditure and not simply longer-term borrowing power. I hope that Members can do better than that type of cheap point-scoring.
We have made commitments that involve the use of borrowing power. We will not use borrowing power to fund programme costs, recurring costs or salaries. It will be used for strategic capital investment. Much expenditure in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development does not come into that category. However, the fact that we can now use that type of collateral to help strategic capital investment on a range of programmes gives some latitude for other programmes.
We look forward to the development of new ideas, which could include areas that we have not yet examined. If we had come to the Assembly with something for everyone in the audience, and something for all Departments, Members would say that such itsy-bitsy funding meant that there were no strategic priorities. Some Members, and some parties in particular, need to maintain some consistency.

Mr Seamus Close: In spite of what the Deputy First Minister has just said, I shall begin by being somewhat parochial. As I read through the list of worthwhile projects, I must ask what has happened to the Lagan Valley constituency. What has happened to the second largest borough in Northern Ireland? When I look at roads I see mention of Larne, Strabane, Omagh and Enniskillen. When I look at hospitals, I see mention of almost every hospital except Lagan Valley Hospital. When I look at schools, I do not see one school in the Lagan Valley constituency mentioned. Bearing in mind that the borough suffered from an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis a couple of years ago, there is no mention of water and sewerage improvements in Lisburn.
My second point is more important. I shall ask a couple of specific questions, to which I would like specific answers. Will OFMDFM give the House a categoric assurance that the projects announced in this morning’s statement, all of which are worthwhile, have gone through a full supporting economic appraisal based on value for money? Has the Department of Finance and Personnel fully scrutinised them? When will the Statutory Committees have an opportunity to view those economic appraisals? If they have not — and I doubt, as I read the relevant part of the statement, whether they have — will OFMDFM advise the House what magic formula was used to enable the proposals to be presented to the House?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member acknowledged that his initial concerns were a trifle parochial. However, I share some of them. I draw his attention to the modest sum allocated to the widening of the M1 motorway: that is the beginning of a significant development, which will be of benefit to the Member. Admittedly, it will take some time to get there, but it will.
We have acknowledged in the statement that water provision is a major problem. There is a clear need for major investment. We shall return to that issue in the autumn, when I hope we shall be able to make further progress.
All the projects mentioned in the statement have been subject to appraisal, and the relevant information will be conveyed to the relevant Committees. The Member will have the opportunity to examine that information in due course. It is important to note, as the Member acknowledges, that we have been able to make progress on several good projects.
There are many other good projects; our problem has always been that we did not have the resources to address as many infrastructure projects as we would have liked to. We have been able to commit £500 million. Six months ago, Members would not have thought that the Assembly would have had the opportunity to do that at this time. That is the result of the initiative that we have taken, which is supported by other Members in the Executive. We shall develop that initiative further. To carry on that work will involve some hard choices. It is the opportunity for the Administration and the Assembly to come of age.

Mr Sam Foster: I shall also be somewhat parochial. I welcome the statement; it will help some necessary projects throughout Northern Ireland, especially in Fermanagh. I am glad that the A32 from Omagh to Enniskillen is to be upgraded. Enniskillen is a growth centre and the roads into the town must be improved.
I am also excited that funding is to be made available for three major school schemes in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone — at Dungannon, Fivemiletown and Enniskillen. I am pleased that Fivemiletown High School has been mentioned, because I have lobbied on its behalf for some time. The school has done good work in that part of the world for a long time. St Patrick’s in Dungannon and St Fanchea’s College in Enniskillen have also done excellent work.
Carntall Primary School needs extra classrooms. I know that this is beyond what is being discussed today, but the teachers there are working under extremely poor conditions that are unfair to the children in the school. I appeal for some money to go in that direction.
Enniskillen Integrated Primary School is in great need of new accommodation, but it also has been left out. I appeal for some thought to be given to that school.
The development of Fermanagh College is a good incentive for the county of Fermanagh —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. I have sympathy for whichever of my Colleagues on my left are going to answer the Member’s question, because I have not yet heard it. Mr Foster, do you have a question?

Mr Sam Foster: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I conclude —

Mr Jim Wilson: I expect to hear a question, Mr Foster.

Mr Sam Foster: I welcome the excellent cancer unit. Can some funds be provided for a new integrated primary school in Enniskillen?

Mr Mark Durkan: We have already said that it will not be for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to go through the detail of the secondary allocations that will be made from some of the moneys announced today. However, there is extra money available to help support small rural schools. There is also new and extra money available to support the integrated education sector. As well as that, there is also the money that we have announced for specific schools capital projects and mobile classrooms. That money adds significantly to the Department of Education’s budget.
I hope that direct benefits to a variety of schools will flow from these allocations. They should allow for some easement in the Department of Education’s already much-pressed budget. I hope that many schools with long-standing needs will benefit from the further announcements.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has eased the pressure on aspects of existing budgets, and it has made real new provision that will be targeted at schools which would not previously have qualified for consideration by conventional means. That is the added benefit of having this sort of Executive-inspired approach. I hope that many Members who have often expressed doubt about the facility offered by such discretionary instruments as the Executive programme funds or the reinvestment and reform initiative will now acknowledge that they see their distinctive value.
One thing that strikes me — and I also had this experience when I was Minister of Finance and Personnel — is that these announcements from the Executive, either through the Department of Finance and Personnel or through OFMDFM, are subject to more questioning and scrutiny about what is being spent where than are the managed programmes of the Departments. Members should think about that.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I will also be parochial in welcoming the £12 million for the gas pipeline. I am sure that I speak for everyone in Derry — people, patients, the families of patients and the hard-pressed staff — when I give thanks for the Durkan/Trimble package, which will enable the £10 million upgrade of Altnagelvin Hospital and contribute to the new Stradreagh hospital. Can the Ministers clarify that, as they have secured the resources, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be able to start the work?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The announcement of the money clears the way for the work to be done, but it will be for the Department to fill in the details of what will be done when. We have made a provision that we hope will bring significant improvements to the hospital.
I also appreciate the Member’s welcome for what has been done on the gas pipeline.
The developments on gas in Northern Ireland would not have been possible without the co-operation of our opposite numbers in the Republic of Ireland. That has benefited everyone in Northern Ireland, and it shows how people have been able to work together not only in the Administration but further afield.

Rev William McCrea: I see that the Deputy First Minister will be answering my questions. Yesterday, when I asked him a simple question, with the unanimous backing of the Committee, I got an hysterical outburst and a personal attack. Perhaps I will get answers to my questions today.
Not one penny of the £510 million that is available has been allocated to the Department of the Environment. We must examine the strategic priorities. The Department made a bid for £2·5million to extend its Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency Headquarters to facilitate essential changes to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That small amount of money would fund something of strategic importance. When will the Department of the Environment receive support from the Executive programme funds?
Speaking in a personal capacity, I am sure that the schools that are getting investment will be delighted. However, I invite the Minister to come to Magherafelt, where he will find that the controlled primary and high schools are dilapidated and run-down, while there is excellent provision for maintained schools. When will the discrimination stop, and when will appropriate action be taken to fund controlled schools in the town?

Mr Mark Durkan: Several points must be borne in mind. The allocations are part of a package that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister negotiated with the Treasury and the Prime Minister. We decided that the bulk of our priorities, given the short-term pillar of the reinvestment and reform initiative, would reflect those that were agreed not just by the Executive but by the Assembly when it adopted the Budget and the Programme for Government.
I make no apology for our being consistent in the approach that has been mandated by the Executive. Much of the investment, not least on the water and sewerage side, will ensure that we move more quickly to comply with Directives being implemented by the Department of the Environment, which, as a watchdog and enforcer of standards, has an interest in expenditure outside that Department also. The Minister of the Environment has been pushing to ensure that more investment goes into water and sewerage so that we can comply with those Directives. That shows that that Minister practises joined-up Government and knows the implications of environmental issues beyond those contained in his Department’s fixed budget.
The Member complained that the Department of the Environment has not benefited from the Executive programme funds, but it has been well treated and supported over the past few years in the mainstream Budget. The Department received a 25% increase in its budget over two years, an allocation that few other Departments received. That percentage increase amounts to more than the bid that Dr McCrea complains has not been met in this funding round. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is asking for ideas for investment at a further stage, and other issues will be dealt with in the Budget cycle.
I wish the Member would have the good grace to welcome packages that provide extra money. The fact that additional money is being provided to the Department of Education must surely improve the prospects of the schools that have not yet been reached under traditional investment programmes.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There are many welcome announcements in today’s statement, and every constituency, with the exception of Lagan Valley and, apparently, South Antrim, has had its good news. In particular, I welcome the announcements on the road between Newry and the border, on Daisy Hill Hospital and on Abbey Grammar School, which I have keenly supported for some time. I congratulate the Deputy First Minister on scoring his own cheap political points in response to my Colleague, Gerry McHugh.
Can the Ministers tell me if there will be any implications for the ongoing negotiations with the Treasury, given that they have allocated this loan facility? Are there any implications for the negotiations for a fairer allocation under the Barnett formula, and will it have any impact on those discussions? That should be a priority for the Executive.
There have been many fine statements about the importance of reform as part of this package. What targets have the First and Deputy First Ministers set for reform? Is it merely to increase efficiency within Departments, or is it to change fundamentally how Departments and the Executive do business?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The improvements to the roads that will take place will be significant, and they were part of the view taken by the Executive of the immediate strategic priorities.
One of the most significant aspects of the reform is the strategic investment board and how we hope that it will develop. That body has just been established in shadow form, and the project board has started to meet. One outcome that we hope to see is an improvement in the range of financing that is available, with the centralisation of all the expertise in dealing with public finance initiatives and public-private partnerships in whatever body is formed.
We must improve the handling of private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships. That was evident on our recent visit to Scotland, where they have had more success in raising money from the private sector than we have. Part of the reason for that is that our expertise is scattered across the Departments. By focusing and concentrating that expertise in one place, we hope to have more success in raising money from the private sector.
In the current allocation, there is a certain amount of private-sector finance. It is part of the way in which the £270 million, which is the initial expenditure for the next two years, will grow to £500 million in the longer term. When we come to deal with the longer-term issues, we want a better result. I cannot set targets for that, but we want to see a higher proportion of the money being brought in from outside, so that we are not limited to the public expenditure funds that we have. That public expenditure money can lever in significant sums from elsewhere, and that is one of the key reform aspects.
Other reviews that have been undertaken are also elements of reform. In particular, in the review of public administration we want to improve the quality of administration. The public service agreements and the service delivery agreements that are part of the Programme for Government are a key element.
We also want to challenge Ministers to think carefully about what they do in their Departments and how they improve the efficiency and quality of the service they provide. We all have to consider ways to raise our game.
With regard to the Member’s questions on ongoing negations and the Barnett formula, there are certain realities that we must bear in mind. We all heard the announcement made by the Chancellor at the time of his Budget, and we know that he anticipated part of the spending review by announcing that he was committing large sums of money to health.
From the point of view of the analysts who looked at what the Chancellor said at the time of the Budget, it was clear that he was committing the bulk of additional public spending available in the next financial year to health. The amount of public spending available for other programmes will be quite limited. We know what the Barnett consequentials of the spending on health will be.
We do not yet know the other public spending increases that the Chancellor will announce. However, it was clear from Budget figures that moneys for sectors other than health will be limited. However, we will get Barnett consequentials. There are disadvantages with Barnett consequentials because they are per capita based, and public expenditure per capita is higher in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. When we discuss the side effects of Barnett consequentials with the Chancellor, we are given the obvious rejoinders: first, Northern Ireland receives better public expenditure per capita than elsewhere; and secondly, we are asked whether we are making the most efficient use of resources. We must be able to answer that question clearly, which is why reform must be at the heart of the initiative.

Mr Billy Bell: Like Mr Close, I am parochial. However, due to the efforts of all Lagan Valley MLAs, five new schools have been established in the constituency during devolution. In addition to that, it has just been announced that we are being granted the use of the Maze Prison.

Dr Esmond Birnie: For the MLAs?

Mr Billy Bell: Not necessarily for the MLAs. However, it will be huge advantage to the area and to Northern Ireland.
I am pleased that £23 million has been allocated to water and sewerage. I am concerned that £47 million a year is being wasted through the leakage of water. That is a huge burden on taxpayers, and I am pleased that £5 million of the £23 million appears to have been allocated to leakage. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure the House that that £5 million will be used for leakage and will not be used to develop an extra source, so that even more water can be poured down leaky pipes?

Mr Mark Durkan: Given that the Member referred to his shared interest with Seamus Close, another Member for Lagan Valley, I could say that we must be careful about being too generous to Lagan Valley in case anyone thinks that we are trying to offer sweeteners to members of the Public Accounts Committee, who are normally forensic about implying that superficial consideration was given to certain allocations.
Some of the provisions are site-specific, while others will support relevant services across the region, including Lagan Valley and other constituencies. For instance, mobile classrooms are an issue for schools in Lagan Valley, as they are for schools elsewhere. It is not as if some parts of the region will not be touched or improved by the measures announced today.
There are problems with water because of underinvestment and serious leakage. Today’s investment announcement will directly support a programme that complies with the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendations. The Minister for Regional Development and his Department have identified many problems, which should not be underestimated. The Public Accounts Committee has brought certain aspects to the attention of the public. What is required with regard to water goes far beyond anything that is possible under the initiative. As the First Minister said, there are major long-term strategic issues for us to consider. Where we know the problems and what needs to be done, we must will the means to do it.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the £6·7 million investment in further education and, specifically, the £3·2 million that will be invested in Limavady College of Further and Higher Education. Do the Ministers agree that that is only a beginning, that much has yet to be done to narrow the gap between vocational and academic education and that, if we are to address the imbalances of the past, further investment is necessary to promote lifelong learning and so widen access for people who were deprived of further education?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The money that has been committed to Limavady College of Further and Higher Education will be used to replace current leased and temporary accommodation that is in urgent need of replacement. The new accommodation must meet present educational and skill demands.
I also endorse the Member’s broader point and remind the House that, when we brought forward the package for further and higher education, it was for further, as well as higher, education. In doing that, we departed from what happened in Scotland, which was regarded as breaking new ground by providing support for students in higher education. Our overall package may not seem as generous as the Scottish one, but we decided to spread the money into further education as well as higher education. It was a deliberate decision, taken for the precise reason that the Member gave.
Academic education is valuable but, from an economic point of view, there is also a need for the skills that become available through further education. It also opens up opportunities for a broader range of people. We are anxious that further education is not forgotten, just as we are anxious, with regard to educational provision as a whole, to level up, not level down.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister identify what funding allocation has been spearheaded to improve water mains and sewers in north Antrim? Can they also identify where specifically the work will take place?

Mr Mark Durkan: The precise breakdown of the additional expenditure will be for the Department for Regional Development to provide. We have a list, but I do not intend to go through it in detail. However, the additional money will involve expenditure in several areas and will ease the pressure and backlog in other areas.
As I said earlier, the sum total of spending by the Department for Regional Development on water and sewerage issues will not be confined to the new money. It will also involve the money that is already in the Department’s budget. I undertake to have the details provided to the Member by the Department for Regional Development.
I make no pretence that the additional money, helpful though it is to the areas that receive it, will be anything like what is needed to counter the scale of underinvestment in water and sewerage provision, which affects all parts of the region and is becoming an increasingly common problem. There is also pressure on planning because water and sewerage provision is under such strain.
I hope that the Member will be able to find some direct benefits for North Antrim. Where direct benefits are not immediately available there, I hope that his constituency will benefit from the easement in the existing departmental budget.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I have spoken previously about the neglect of our infrastructure in the west and other peripheral areas, so I warmly welcome this morning’s announcement and congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The £6 million investment in rural schools is welcome, as is the £15 million investment to replace mobile classrooms. Does the First Minister agree that the investment in rural schools will help to ensure that they continue to deliver education, which, in turn, will underpin local rural communities? Moreover, does he agree that mobile classrooms and the neglect of school estate were features of education under the control of direct-rule Ministers? Perhaps he will agree that it has taken the Assembly to begin to sort out that mess.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Yes, this is an opportunity to deal with the underinvestment in infrastructure during direct rule, when it was all too easy to postpone capital projects to meet the many other pressures on budgets. As I said earlier, the particular provisions for their removal will reduce the number of mobile classrooms by approximately 20%, which is a substantial proportion.
The allocation will improve accommodation at 75 small rural primary schools. That is one quarter of the total number of primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils, so a significant proportion of schools will be assisted by the project. The reinvestment and reform initiative has given us the opportunity to take action over and above what would normally result from public expenditure.
My earlier points about private finance are particularly appropriate for schools. Not so long ago, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a school that was the result of a private finance initiative (PFI). One benefit of a PFI provision in schools is that it relieves teachers of the need to act as estate managers. Experts in property management will do that for them. That benefit is perhaps not yet fully appreciated by the public, which is one reason for wanting to improve our PFI performance. I hope that that will be a consequence of developing the strategic investment body.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I welcome the statement for two major reasons. First, it is indicative of new initiative thinking and of the value of devolved Government. The reinvestment and reform initiative and the earlier Executive programme funds initiative create new money and vindicate those who support devolution.
I welcome the expenditure allocation for the new cancer centre, which, no doubt, will be appreciated by many families. In the parochial sense, I welcome the allocation of £4·4 million to the Kilkeel fishing industry, which will improve safety and support investment in the harbour.
Among the many hospitals mentioned, was a bid made for new capital funding for the Downe Hospital in Downpatrick? The Ministers may not be able to tell me that.

Mr Mark Durkan: I appreciate the Member’s broad welcome for the approach we outlined and for the devolution dividend that has been shown by the reinvestment and reform initiative, which follows from the new Executive strategic prioritisation that was shown by the creation of the Executive programme funds. We must continue to do that. We must show that devolution offers us a chance, not only to bridge divides between communities, but to continue to narrow the gap between what ought to be and what is. Initiatives that strategically use additional resources help us to narrow that gap.
The regional cancer centre is hugely welcome. Many of us have seen family and friends suffer from cancer. We have seen them struggle to cope as patients, and we have seen dedicated professionals struggle to administer treatment in inadequate and outdated conditions. They need and deserve better facilities, and we will deliver them. The regional cancer strategy is delivering the regional cancer centre and the additional cancer unit at Antrim Area Hospital. Alongside the regional cancer centre, the four units are significant pillars of the regional cancer strategy.
I am glad that the Member welcomed the significant investment in Kilkeel harbour, and I hope that the fishing community in Kilkeel, which has faced recent stresses and distresses, welcomes it too. The Executive’s investment is a timely response to the needs of that community there.
Mr McGrady referred to a bid for funding for Downe Hospital. A bid was not submitted specifically for Downe Hospital. I must repeat the caution that I have given on other occasions to other Members: we must not turn the scrutiny of these announcements into bid-chasing exercises, in which we try to come up with every possible bid. It would be easy for Departments to bid for everything. In fact, we had a daft situation in which some Departments submitted total bids that amounted to more than the total amount of money available.
Shortage of bids is not a problem; underspending is. I am not suggesting that Downe Hospital could not spend money allocated to it in a timely and strategic fashion, but the Assembly must break the bid-chasing cycle. The real issue is how Departments and services plan to manage and spend the money. The timescale for that pillar of the programme is this financial year and the next, so Departments concentrated on proposals that could use the funding straightaway. The timescale may, therefore, have determined the areas for which Departments submitted bids. However, if we want strategic investments and strategic commitments, we must move away from the bid frisking that Committees sometimes get hung up on.

Mr Robert McCartney: I also welcome the money that was made available for the various items that were given priority. That they were delayed for so long makes my welcome all the more enthusiastic. However, the Deputy First Minister said that we must not burden future generations with the cost of present implementation. Regardless of the long-term borrowings, where will the money come from to pay the interest on the short-term borrowings? Where will the money come from to repay the considerable capital involved? Is it to come from charges levied on water, and possibly sewerage systems, and vast increases in rates? I ask that question bearing in mind that it was suggested that the Barnett formula will be required for running costs and that that money will not be used for anything other than capital investment in the black hole in our infrastructure.
I hope that my question will avoid any accusations of parochialism, and I trust that it will not provoke the sort of hysteria that seems to have infected the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in their responses to questions that they are not happy to deal with.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I thank the Member for welcoming the announcements. I want to carp slightly at his terminology when he said that the investments had been "delayed for so long". The Member is fair if he refers to delays during direct rule, but if he refers to delay on our part, I must point out that we have brought these proposals to the House a mere two months after the reinvestment and reform initiative was announced. The negotiations on the development of the initiative took a great deal of work over several months, and we have created a facility that was not anticipated.
As the Member knows, the short-term package — the £125 million that was borrowed to fund some of these investments over the next two years — will be paid for from existing revenue. There is no question of any increase in borrowing. That point was covered in the statement. The issues that the Member raised are important for our long-term objectives, and we must consider those carefully. We must be honest with ourselves and with the community in Northern Ireland. It is the same point that arises with regard to the Barnett formula. When we raise the issue of funding in Northern Ireland with the Treasury, we are asked if we are making the best use of existing resources and revenue. We can, and do, argue our case with the Treasury. However, compared to England, Wales and Scotland, there is undertaxation in Northern Ireland in respect of locally raised revenue, which runs at several hundred million pounds a year.
We must consider what we will do about that. Will we say to local people that we will try to get the Treasury to pay for their services when they are not contributing as much as people in England, Scotland and Wales? Is that a fair approach to taxation and expenditure across the kingdom? I think not. The rating review will enable us to consider the issue, and it will probably mean that there will be some increase in local taxation.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the rates be increased?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The rates might be increased or something else might be increased. That is what we have to consider. The rating review opens up the issue for discussion. The Assembly and the community in Northern Ireland must face that discussion. We must recognise that the level of taxation in local government in Northern Ireland is less than that in England, Scotland and Wales. Therefore we must consider that point and ask whether additional revenue can be found to meet the cost of future borrowing.
Some of the scare stories that have been spread in the media about what this may mean are, however, greatly exaggerated. The Assembly will make any decisions on the matter, and I hope that when we reach that point there will be grown-up discussion and consideration instead of some of the sillier points that have been raised in recent months.

Mr Jim Wilson: We have less than three minutes left. If the question is brief and the answer equally brief, I will consider that I have received your co-operation.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the announcement and, from a parochial perspective, the proposals for health, education and roads that affect my constituency, Newry and Armagh.
Although I welcome the education allocations, I seek assurance that they are consistent with the capital building list of contenders so that the schools on that list will receive the funding. I also seek assurance that the welcome replacement of 200 mobile classrooms will happen throughout the Province and across all education sectors.
Members were told that hard choices lie ahead for the Assembly. What is the nature of those choices? Will the Minister confirm that all parties in the Executive will share the burden of those hard choices?

Mr Mark Durkan: The allocations announced for specific capital projects are in line with the overall capital needs priorities as reflected by the Department of Education. The Committee for Education can pursue that aspect, if Mr Kennedy is not happy with my assurances.
If we are to use the extra spending capacity offered by the longer-term borrowing power, we will have to balance the amount that we can afford to borrow against the amount that we cannot afford not to spend. If we use the borrowing power, we will not have extra free money, because we will have to use public revenue to support our loan. That is one reason why there should be a focus only on strategic capital. It will be the Assembly — not just the parties in the Executive — that makes those choices.

British-Irish Council Summit

Mr Jim Wilson: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of their wish to make a statement on the British-Irish Council summit meeting, which was held on 14 June 2002 in Jersey.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I understand that there have been no problems with the advance distribution of the text of the statements. I will make a statement on the British-Irish Council summit, and the Deputy First Minister will make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting.
All the Northern Ireland Ministers who attended the third summit meeting of the British-Irish Council have approved my report, and I make it on their behalf. The Deputy First Minister and I, together with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Minister of Education, and the Minister for Employment and Learning, represented the Northern Ireland Administration. Representatives of the British and Irish Governments, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Government and the States of Jersey and Guernsey also attended.
The main focus of the meeting was the knowledge economy and the development of plans for co-operation on that issue in the British-Irish Council. It was apparent from discussions at the meeting that all British-Irish Council Administrations are actively working on strategies to address knowledge economy issues, and there was a good exchange of information and views on the wide variety of policies, methods and projects under way.
In recognising the need to address important challenges in that area, it was agreed that work in the knowledge economy sector would include specific projects relating to the digital divide, such as providing access for disabled people to information and communication technology facilities and e-government.
A group of knowledge economy officials from all the Administrations has been established to develop the issue, and sub-groups will progress matters of mutual interest in areas such as research, the digital divide and e-democracy.
The importance of the effective switchover to digital terrestrial television and competitive broadband markets was also recognised, and it was agreed that those matters could be considered further. Members also agreed to work together on the identification and development of pilot programmes for specific issues relating to the knowledge economy. The meeting heard about the outcomes of the recent British-Irish Council conference on bridging the digital divide, which was hosted by Jersey in April 2002. In consultation with other British-Irish Council Administrations, and along with the British-Irish Council Secretariat, Jersey took the lead in designing a British-Irish Council web site, which was launched after the meeting.
An update was provided on sectoral work by the relevant lead Administrations. The Irish Government are taking the lead on drugs. Since the second summit meeting in Dublin in November 2001, at which the issue of drugs misuse was the main focus, drugs officials have been preparing recommendations for co-operation. A meeting of drugs Ministers, hosted by the Irish Government on 22 March, focused on the importance of targeting the proceeds of drugs trafficking, and of involving the community in the development and implementation of drugs strategies. It also considered the need to divert young people at risk into healthier pursuits, and to provide training and employment opportunities to recovering drug misusers. Further meetings on diversion programmes for young people at risk and reintegration and training opportunities for recovering drug misusers are scheduled to take place in the coming months.
A conference on targeting the proceeds of the drugs trade, hosted by Guernsey, took place in May 2002. A further conference on community involvement in the development and implementation of drugs strategies will be hosted by the Northern Ireland Executive in November 2002. The next meeting of Ministers to review developments is scheduled to take place in Dublin in spring 2003.
The United Kingdom Government have been taking the lead in the environment sector. In February 2002, British-Irish Council Environment Ministers met for the second time in Edinburgh to consider waste management, Sellafield and radioactive waste, marine nature conservation, and climate change.
The Scottish Executive, with other members, continue to advance work to find more sustainable ways of managing generated waste, which is a matter of increasing concern to British-Irish Council members. The Scottish Executive gave a presentation on the issue to other members at the Edinburgh meeting, and work to address the challenge and to identify the scope for co-operation continues.
Ireland and the Isle of Man have taken the lead in examining the issue of radioactive waste from Sellafield. Ministers discussed the matter during their recent meeting, and it will be considered further at the next meeting of environment Ministers, which will be hosted by Northern Ireland in autumn 2002. There will be a further meeting of Ministers in the Isle of Man next year.
Scotland and Wales are the lead Administrations on social inclusion, which will be the central focus of the next summit meeting. Current proposals for future co-operation include practical processes for sharing information and best practice for promoting social inclusion at community level. Future work will also build on existing experiences of networking between communities. Communities will be involved in the development of the Council’s future programme of co-operation.
In addition to the summit meeting in Scotland, a community inclusion conference is scheduled to take place in Glasgow in September 2002, when the main theme will be financial inclusion. Plans to develop an electronic community inclusion network are also being considered.
Northern Ireland is the lead Administration on transport. British-Irish Council officials have met to progress work on several aspects of the transport sector that were identified at the first summit and at a ministerial meeting that took place in Belfast in December 2000. As part of that work, the Irish Government have agreed to take the lead on integrated transport matters.
Officials from all British-Irish Council Administrations are also exploring the possibility of an exchange of views and experience of public-private partnerships for transport infrastructure. Having recognised that there is considerable scope for co-operation on road safety issues, the Administrations are also identifying areas that could be developed in that way.
Regional air links, which are of particular concern to several Members, are among the other matters under active consideration. The Northern Ireland Executive will host a ministerial meeting soon to discuss those issues further.
The Isle of Man agreed to take the lead on the application of telemedicine at the summit meeting in November 2001. Initial meetings of officials have taken place to plan future co-operation, and proposals currently include the monitoring and exchange of information on the use of telemedicine and evaluation of the benefits to be derived by implementing telemedicine and e-health clinically, educationally and organisationally. Further meetings, including a number of study visits to telemedicine projects across British-Irish Council Administrations, are scheduled to take place before the end of the year.
It was also agreed at the summit meeting in November 2001 that Guernsey would be the lead Administration on tourism. Officials continue to discuss how best to advance work in this area. Future plans include proposals to identify common visitor data and an examination of tourism satellite accounting. The challenges of transport access, industry contacts, disabled access, and links between the environment and tourism, as well as training and the support of small businesses in the sector, will also be considered. Further meetings to develop this work are planned for the coming months.
The Council agreed that the National Assembly for Wales would take forward work in the area of minority and lesser-used languages.
The meeting considered proposals to improve the workings of the Council, and it was agreed that the senior co-ordinating officials group, which comprises officials from all Administrations, will examine how best the Council can be supported and developed in order to promote and maximise its impact.
This group will also consider whether further benefit could be derived from the bilateral and multilateral arrangements between two or more members described in paragraph 10 of strand three of the agreement. The Council also agreed that the senior co-ordinating officials group should bring forward proposals to the next summit meeting so that the Council might consider how to encourage the development of the inter-parliamentary links provided for in paragraph 11 of strand three of the agreement.
The Council agreed that Scotland will host the next summit in November 2002, and that the meeting will focus on the issue of social inclusion. Northern Ireland and Wales will host summit meetings in 2003. A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The First Minister has described a comprehensive and worthwhile forward work programme for the British-Irish Council. Will use be made of the scope provided in the Belfast Agreement for bilateral meetings between member Governments?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Yes, indeed it will. Meetings will not always involve all eight Administrations, as only a limited number of items are of direct interest to all, and progress has been made on having meetings in different formats, and on some form of variable geometry.
The Deputy First Minister and I have discussed this with the Scottish Administration, and there is a tentative agreement. We have not yet involved the Welsh in these discussions. We are working towards a situation where the Scots, the Welsh, and our own Administration meet regularly to look at common interests and issues. As the three devolved regions within the United Kingdom, there are some issues that apply directly to us.
We see this activity occurring within the British-Irish Council framework, and as part of those bilateral and trilateral activities that are actually provided for in the agreement. The other participating Administrations in the Council will be informed about what is happening, and will hopefully not feel that the three of us are ganging up on any other particular Administration.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What further progress has been made on the misuse of drugs agenda since it was first discussed at the Dublin British-Irish Council meeting at the end of last year? Also, with the National Assembly for Wales taking forward the work on minority and lesser-used languages, will the First Minister confirm that sign language will be included as one of the lesser-used languages?

Rt Hon David Trimble: On the question of drugs, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will host a conference in November 2002 in Northern Ireland. This will explore models of good practice and involving communities in local strategies.
It is proposed that the conference will include community-based speakers from member countries, who will share their experiences of working alongside policy makers and statutory agencies to implement their respective strategies. British-Irish Council members will also be invited to speak about their experience in developing partnership networks across Departments between voluntary, community and statutory sectors, and the importance of community involvement in the implementation of local strategies.
The Welsh Administration proposed holding a sectoral meeting on minority and lesser-used languages. Given that many people in Wales speak Welsh, they have some expertise in that area. It is natural to think of that in relation to other British-Irish Council members where minority and lesser-used languages are also used. It is a new proposal. The Welsh Administration did not go into detail on its possible ambit, so I cannot answer the Member’s specific question about sign language. We will bear it in mind and see if inquiries can be made. If there is any information, it can be communicated subsequently to the Member.

Mr David Ford: Would the First Minister pass on my congratulations to the Government of Jersey for not only taking the lead in designing a web site, but in appearing to have achieved that? I counted 33 phrases in the First Minister’s statement similar to, and including, "will also consider", "development of pilot programmes", "preparing recommendations" and "work continues". In the face of those aspirations, surely we should all welcome the fact that at least Jersey has achieved something.
The First Minister referred to Northern Ireland taking the lead on transport matters. Neither the Minister for Regional Development nor the Minister of the Environment were at the meeting, but can the First Minister give us a flavour of what has been achieved by his Administration in transport co-ordination, especially in road safety?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I would put a slightly different interpretation on the phrases that the Member has drawn to my attention. Drawing attention to ongoing work and work that will be done in the future highlights the fact that the British-Irish Council is developing. The Council has taken some time to build up. The number of references to ongoing work — and I am indebted to the Member for telling us the total number — is a sign that the Council is developing.
I also join with Mr Ford in congratulating Jersey for the progress they have made; it was good to launch the web site.
Work continues on transport. At the sectoral meeting an idea was developed that related directly to road safety, and especially to legislation in different jurisdictions and the consideration of a means of making that legislation read across from one jurisdiction to another. It was pointed out that many road accidents happen near the border. The reason for that seems to be that when drivers cross the border, they think that they are now on the other side and do not have to worry to the same extent about road traffic legislation and penalties. Now that we are all moving towards a penalty points system, the idea was mooted that we try to ensure that there is reciprocal enforcement so that drivers from both sides of the border realise that when they cross the border, the law still applies to them. Those ideas are being advanced.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Minister confirm that the experience of all our partners in the British-Irish Council will be used in the development of the reinvestment and reform initiative, especially in the area of public-private partnerships?
Will he confirm that public-private partnerships are used more extensively in England, Scotland and Wales, and also in the Republic of Ireland? Does he accept that Northern Ireland has been relatively slow to use public-private partnerships and that we should gain from the experience and innovation that exists in the private sector?

Rt Hon David Trimble: That question could have been asked regarding the previous statement. I have said that officials in the British-Irish Council Administrations are exploring the possibility of exchanges of views and experiences regarding PPPs, especially in relation to transport infrastructure.
We do not have a great deal of experience of PPPs in Northern Ireland, and we have a lot to learn from other British-Irish Council Administrations. We look forward to the exchange of information on that. The subject was discussed when we visited the Scottish Executive in Edinburgh. They have been successful in raising several billion pounds from private finance for projects, particularly with regard to schools. We are moving only in a small way on that, but we are hoping to improve our performance through the reinvestment and reform initiative.
I will stray for a moment into the territory of the Deputy First Minister. There is a national finance corporation in the Republic of Ireland that bears some similarity to the strategic investment body that we are developing. There will be areas there where there can be a useful exchange of information.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Radioactive waste from Sellafield was discussed recently by the Environment Ministers in Edinburgh, and it will be considered at a meeting here in the autumn. I welcome that. Many people are expressing public concerns about the implications of an attack on British nuclear plants such as Sellafield, and the potential risk to the people in Ireland should not be underestimated.
That risk was underlined in the recently released first report from the Office for Civil Nuclear Safety, which discloses deficiencies that are hampering attempts to protect those plants. Will that report be examined in detail at the autumn meeting, and will it look at the grave risk that Sellafield poses to Ireland and the Irish people? Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, through the British-Irish Council, press for the closure of Sellafield?
The National Assembly for Wales is to take forward work in the area of minority and lesser-used languages. Can we have more detail about that work and how it might impact on the development of the Irish language?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I remind the Member of the answer I gave on languages a few moments ago. That proposal has come from the Welsh Administration and it struck us as a good, sensible proposal because several Administrations have minority and lesser-used languages, and something may be learnt from the experience of others. We look forward with interest to what the National Assembly for Wales has to say, what ideas it brings forward and what we can learn from its experience. I cannot give the Member any more information, but no doubt there will be further developments.
I am glad to see that the Member is alive to the danger of terrorist attacks on Sellafield or other installations of that nature. We are all very much alive to that following September 11. However, it has not come up in the British-Irish Council. It is a matter that comes up through the Civil Contingencies Committee, which exists on a UK basis. The Northern Ireland Administration is represented on that committee and has attended meetings.
Efforts have been made by the Civil Contingencies Committee to ensure that contingency plans for major emergencies are up-to-date and robust. I am assured that our plans for any contingency of that nature have been reviewed and are robust. However, we should hope that there is no terrorist attack on Sellafield and support what Governments are doing worldwide in the pursuit of the war against terrorism.

Mr John Dallat: I was especially pleased to learn that the knowledge economy was discussed. What provision will be made to ensure that e-government assists social inclusion rather than simply become another tool of bureaucracy?

Rt Hon David Trimble: A considerable amount of work is being done on e-government, especially on digital inclusion. The Executive intend to make all key Government services electronically available by 2005. However, that is only half the story; that target will have to be matched by citizens in order to maximise access to those channels. A strategy document on the matter is being developed.
The Executive endorsed targets for electronic service delivery in July 2001, and those have now been included in the Programme for Government. It has been agreed that 25% of all key services will be capable of being delivered electronically by the end of 2002, with a target of 100% capability set for the end of 2005.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Like others before me, I welcome the statement on matters that are germane to all the islands. I draw the Ministers’ attention back to one of my favourite subjects, which is Sellafield and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. I welcome the fact that all Governments are now concentrating on that area, although I am somewhat sceptical about the report, which says that the UK Government, a principal stakeholder, is taking the lead in the environmental sector. I shall watch that space with care.
I draw the Ministers’ attention to the fact that a statement will be issued later this week that will announce the establishment of a liabilities management authority and the possible dismemberment of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. That will result in taxpayers, including those in Northern Ireland, picking up the tab for 50 years of nuclear waste accumulation. Will the Ministers ensure that all facets of the nuclear industry will be on the agenda next autumn on the Isle of Man? During my recent visit there, its Government outlined their grave concerns and their determination to pursue the commencement of the decommissioning process, which is creating the additional long-term waste. I want an assurance that, at the next meeting, we shall specifically pursue resolutions to the environmental sector’s horrendous problems.

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is well known for his concerns on this and for the assiduity with which he pursues them. I remind him that the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man have taken the lead on the issue of Sellafield and radioactive waste. A paper prepared by Ireland and Mann was presented at the environment sectoral meeting in Edinburgh in February 2002. Since that paper was presented there have been several developments, such as the UK Government’s decision on the Sellafield MOX plant, the environment agencies’ consultation on the review of authorisations to dispose of radioactive waste from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd at Sellafield and the UK-wide public consultation on managing radioactive waste activity. Indeed, as the Member said, there may be further developments.
The Edinburgh meeting agreed that the paper should be redrafted to take account of those issues. The revised paper, which takes account of all subsequent developments, will form the basis of more detailed discussions at the next environmental ministerial meeting, which will take place in Belfast this autumn.

North/South Ministerial Council Plenary Meeting

Mr Jim Wilson: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister —

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 28 May last, I proposed a motion calling on the Assembly to enter into negotiations on the establishment of a North/South parliamentary forum. The Assembly rejected that motion, largely through the votes of Ulster Unionist Members. Media reports over the weekend suggested that the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), on which the Assembly is about to receive a statement, had discussions on the establishment of such a forum, which I believe to be properly the responsibility of the House and not of the Executive. Maybe it illustrates a change of heart on the part of the First Minister; maybe it illustrates the continuing shambles of the Ulster Unionist Party. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will rule —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. That is not a point of order. I cannot accept it because it is not for me to rule on what may be discussed at the NSMC. However, the Member may ask a question on the matter that concerns him following the Deputy First Minister’s statement.

Mr David Ford: On that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You did not allow me to complete my point of order —

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. I have heard sufficient to know that it was not a point of order. I am not accepting it as a point of order. I call the Deputy First Minister, Mr Mark Durkan.

Mr David Ford: On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Jim Wilson: I am not taking the point of order, Mr Ford.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A Member has a right to raise a point of order if it is not along the same line as the point of order that you have ruled against. That is the right of every Member.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Member has a right to attempt to make a point of order before a statement is made, as the Speaker made clear yesterday. That is why I allowed Mr Ford to continue for some time. I heard what he was saying, and it was not a point of order. I call the Deputy First Minister, Mr Mark Durkan.

Mr Mark Durkan: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Ministers who attended I will make a statement on the fourth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) held on Friday, 28 June 2002 in Armagh. The eight Ministers whose names have been notified to the Assembly participated in the meeting.
The plenary meeting reviewed the programme of work which it had put on train at its first meeting in Armagh in December 1999 and received a progress report on the work of the NSMC at meetings in sectoral format since January 2002. The Council heard reports on the valuable work being done in those sectors. Both sides look forward to the delivery of further tangible benefits to both jurisdictions. The council noted that the useful first meeting took place in institutional format in December 2001 and looked forward to continuing its work in that format.
The Council considered proposals brought forward by the consultative forum working group following consultation with the Northern Ireland Civic Forum and the social partners in the South which are participating in the central review mechanism of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
An outline structure for a North/South consultative forum was agreed by the Council. A twice-yearly conference will take place, alternating between North and South and comprising representatives of civil society in the North and South. The planning and organisation of the first conference will be undertaken by a steering committee drawn from the Northern Ireland Civic Forum and the social partners in the South participating in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in liaison with the two Administrations. The steering committee will also invite representatives from a range of relevant organisations from the North and South to participate in the conferences.
The Council noted the analysis put forward by the working group, which was set up to consider areas of co-operation, and agreed that there is potential for mutual benefit from co-operation in areas such as strategic investment in infrastructure, including strategic transport issues.
It was also agreed that the appropriate Ministers in the respective North/South Ministerial Council sectors should consider whether there are matters within existing areas of co-operation which might be included in their future programme of work.
With regard to North/South co-operation outside the North/South Ministerial Council, it was agreed that Ministers would examine the working group’s proposals. The Council considered the provisions of the agreement that established the North/South bodies for the transfer of the functions carried out by the Irish Lights Commissioners to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. It recognised that complex issues surround such a transfer, and it asked the relevant Ministers and Departments, North and South, to examine urgently the alternative possibilities and make proposals to the Council.
The Council discussed European Union matters and considered a report from the EU working group. Recognising the importance of the EU to both jurisdictions, the Council decided that Ministers might consider the European dimension of North/South co-operation at the next sectoral meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. It also decided that the working group should make an overall assessment of EU issues that are likely to arise. Further consideration will be given to how the Council’s views can be reflected appropriately at EU meetings.
The Council considered proposals to overcome obstacles to cross-border mobility on the island of Ireland. Consultants carried out a study on the matter, which was published earlier this year, after which there was extensive public consultation. The Council was pleased to note that, since commissioning the study and the consultation process, some recommendations have been implemented. In response to recommendations on the difficulty of accessing information on issues relating to North/South mobility, the Council agreed to establish a web site providing comprehensive and easily accessible information.
The Council also decided that recommendations for education, work, health and pensions should be considered by relevant Government Departments so that they can make detailed proposals for implementation, including costs. It also decided that officials from the two Administrations would further examine other recommendations.
The Council noted the annual report on the activities of the North/South Ministerial Council from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001. That report will be published soon. The Council noted the development of two similar investment initiatives: the National Development Finance Agency in the South and the strategic investment body in the North. It welcomed the proposals for infrastructure development being prepared by both Administrations.
The Council, when considering the provision for a joint parliamentary forum in strand two of the agreement, recognised that the development of any such forum is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the two houses of the Oireachtas. It agreed that officials from the two Administrations should contact officials in the elected institutions and report to the next plenary meeting. The Council noted a recently completed economic appraisal of the options for accommodation for the joint secretariat of the North/South Ministerial Council in Armagh. It agreed that those options should be considered by the two Administrations in liaison with the joint project team and that they should be presented at a Council meeting.
The Council approved a schedule of North/South Ministerial Council meetings to take place over the coming months. Before the meeting commenced, the First Minister, the Taoiseach and I launched the North/ South Ministerial Council web site. The Council agreed that its next plenary meeting would take place in Northern Ireland in November 2002. A copy of the communiqué that was issued after the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Sir John Gorman: Will the Minister confirm that the scheduled sectoral meetings will be business driven as opposed to diary driven?

Mr Mark Durkan: The future business of the North/South Ministerial Council, in its various formats, will be business driven in that work being carried out at present must be followed up by the relevant sectoral format. The Council agreed at its meeting on Friday that the sectoral formats would consider EU matters that may be of relevance to them and examine other opportunities for co-operation that have not yet been activated. There is work to be done and followed through in the meetings in each sectoral format, so future meetings will be entirely business led.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Can the Minister say what discussion occurred with the two newly launched investment initiatives — the strategic investment body in the North, and the National Development Finance Agency in the South? Can he ensure that they will be fully supportive when joint investment projects of mutual benefit arise? Where will the next NSMC plenary meeting take place, and will the Deputy First Minister consider bringing it to his native city to allow the participants to experience the hospitality of that part of Ireland? [Interruption.]

Mr Jim Wilson: Order. A mobile phone rang in the Chamber; can it be switched off?

Mr Mark Durkan: On the Member’s latter point, we may be able to hold the next plenary meeting in Magee College in November. I hope that we will be able to fulfil the Member’s ambitions and that the local hospitality matches the standard that she claims.
The discussion we had on the strategic investment body and the National Development Finance Agency took place at a time when our plans and proposals for those entities were at a formative stage. We shared with the Southern Ministers the background to the reinvestment and reform initiative and the role we envisaged for the strategic investment body, which is to deliver supporting finance solutions for the programmes and priorities that will be determined on the democratic, political side by Ministers, Departments and the Executive.
Southern Ministers filled us in on the background to the National Development Finance Agency. Although the scope for activity and support by the bodies is similar, there are some distinctions. Given that we will be talking about strategic investment, which on some occasions will have a North/South dimension, and about trying to lever in other sources of funding that may include funding from international markets, it makes sense to compare notes and exchange ideas. It is a situation in which great minds think alike. We have produced and developed an entity similar to that in the South, so we should maximise the advantages of further comparisons and co-ordinate and collaborate in the future.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Ministers’ report on the NSMC plenary meeting states that
"In regard to the North/South co-operation outside the NSMC, it was agreed that Ministers would examine the working group’s proposals."
Surely that is a major extension of the area in which the NSMC should work? It seems that political issues that are not within the framework are to be brought in. It has been advocated that the NSMC should make representations at European meetings on European matters. That would weaken the status of Northern Ireland as a separate entity from the Irish Republic and prevent Northern Ireland from making its own case in association with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe. Keeping those points in mind, can the First Minister and his deputy tell the House the cost of the proposed increase of the North/South quango? Can they confirm that it is the Dublin Government that is driving the agenda for the benefit of those who demand a united Ireland? Can they further confirm that the Northern Ireland Assembly has no power to alter the budget of that all-Ireland vehicle in which they seem to participate so enthusiastically?

Mr Mark Durkan: I remind the Member that what I said was with regard not to North/South co-operation that is not taking place but to North/South co-operation that is taking place outside the NSMC. It was agreed in respect of that kind of co-operation that Ministers would examine the working group’s proposals. That was discussed earlier in the year when the First Minister and I reported on the meeting in the NSMC’s institutional format that considered other areas of co-operation that were taking place outside the NSMC.
An extensive range of areas of co-operation is being pursued on a Department-to-Department and civil servant-to-civil servant basis. I would have thought that the Member, who is so assiduous in trying to ensure that anything that happens should happen under the spotlight and accountability of OFMDFM and that Ministers should be accountable for everything that their Departments do, would not be averse to ensuring that all areas of activity that are undertaken by Departments on a cross-border, North/South basis, would be considered for inclusion in the areas of co-operation that are conducted under the NSMC and would, therefore, be the subject of accountable statements in the Assembly.
Let us be clear about EU matters. Nobody talks about Northern Ireland as a region that does not have its own case on EU issues. Clearly, Northern Ireland has its own case. Northern Ireland’s regional case on EU matters is often different from the priorities of and cases made by the UK Government. At times, it is also distinct from the priorities and interests of the Irish Government.
Northern Ireland must use all available channels to promote its needs. That involves MEPs and their role in the European Parliament. It involves the Assembly, using every means available through joint ministerial committees and other opportunities, such as its influence on the position of the UK Government. It includes Northern Ireland’s Ministers being involved directly in the business of the EU Council, alongside UK Ministers. All that has been done.
In addition, being able to use the NSMC to explore issues of common concern and possible differences and, therefore, rivalries and tensions that we might want to minimise when matters are discussed at EU level, will add one more layer of advocacy and support to Northern Ireland’s regional interest.
There are occasions when it is directly in Northern Ireland’s regional interest that present at the EU Council of Ministers are not just the UK Ministers whom we have lobbied and badgered, but Ministers from another member state — our neighbouring Ministers in the South, who fully understand Northern Ireland’s needs and are often promoting a similar case. An example of that is fisheries. This is about maximising the opportunities that are afforded to us to promote Northern Ireland’s interests in the EU.

Mr Barry McElduff: I am disappointed that the Deputy First Minister seems to believe that the best interests of the North do not lie in Ireland’s being treated as a single unit by the EU.
Nonetheless, I welcome the fourth plenary meeting of the NSMC. Yesterday, the Member for South Down, Mr Mick Murphy, raised the issue of students from the Twenty-six Counties being unable to receive financial assistance to study for PhDs in the North. Can the Minister detail the number and nature of recommendations that have already been implemented with respect to the proposals on obstacles to cross-border mobility? Can he also detail the North/South Ministerial Council meetings scheduled to take place in the coming months?

Mr Mark Durkan: First, I have not said that I do not want to see the EU treat Ireland as a single unit for all matters. I made a statement on the business of the North/South Ministerial Council. I am not here to preach my personal opinion on different matters and different future arrangements. I am here to record in good faith what was transacted at a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council and deliver a statement that was approved and agreed by all the Ministers who attended that meeting.
It is not for me, as a Minister making a statement on behalf of other Ministers, to embroider all sorts of things in all sorts of directions. If I were to do that, I would remind the Member that at least the SDLP, as a party that wants to talk about Europe and Ireland as a single unit, wants the euro throughout Ireland, while Sinn Féin appears to be sterling in its opposition to the euro and wants partition in that respect. We should not get into that here, and I should resist the Member’s temptation.
Some of the recommendations of the obstacles to mobility study have already been implemented; others are the subject of further exploration and consideration and will, as I said, come forward.
A web site specific to the NSMC has been launched, and the Member will be able to find all the appropriate details there. I do not have a calendar to hand, but I will be able to provide the Member with details of the schedule of future meetings.

Mr David Ford: The Deputy First Minister mentioned the potential for mutual benefit on strategic transport issues. It was a fairly limited statement on something that has such major potential importance for transport on this island as a whole. Can he enunciate further on that?

Mr Mark Durkan: I reflected what was discussed. We did not fill in specific proposals or projects at the meeting, which was exploratory and illustrative. My statement was an honest reflection of the quality of the discussion that we had. I do not want to understate the significance of this or overstate the nature of the agreement and the understanding that we came to.
Let us be clear: as with the British-Irish Council, this process will not work on the basis of immediate fixed products at any time. Because we are talking about areas of mutual interest, mutual co-operation and common advantage, the work will, by necessity, take time and require due consideration and diligence.
We have recognised the importance of those areas. The separate discussion on the National Development Finance Agency in the South and the strategic investment body in the North was also relevant and, in many ways, corroborates the positive assessment that was made on the possibilities.
The strategic transport possibilities do not only apply to those who happen to live in border areas and can see some of the more immediate localised infrastructure issues; they apply on an entirely strategic basis across this region and the South. Obviously, there is much more to be done. I do not know whether the relevant Assembly Committees want to try suggesting other possibilities, but they are certainly free to take an interest in them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member has not availed of the opportunity, which you said would be available, to ask me specifically about what consideration we gave to provisions for an interparliamentary forum.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Assembly was due to rise at 1.00pm; however, further to discussions through the appropriate channels, I am informed that the intention is to continue without a break for lunch.

Mr Ivan Davis: I note that the North/South Ministerial Council agreed an outline structure for a North/South consultative forum, and that a biannual conference will take place. What are the desired benefits of a joint civic forum conference?

Mr Mark Durkan: A North/South consultative forum is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, but the provision has not yet been activated or pursued. The North/South Ministerial Council adopted an approach that does not involve creating a new entity whose members are separate from the existing social partner representative organisations — the Civic Forum here and the Central Review Panel for the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness in the South. The joint conference will involve members of those two bodies, which represent the broad interests of civic society. The steering group will be provided for members of those organisations. It makes sense to follow through on the provision in the agreement.
Members of the two representative bodies and other interested parties have useful insight that would help to identify concerns and obstacles to mobility that affect individuals, sectors and localities daily. The forum will be able to reflect on some of the North/South Ministerial Council’s work and on other issues that the Council does not address. Moreover, it will be able to indicate and, I hope, promote some of the very good cross-border partnership work outside Government, for example, in cross-border councils and the community and voluntary sectors. It will also consider the many private sector initiatives through the Confederation of British Industries and the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation.
The conference will provide a channel for reflection by those disparate groups. Just as the Civic Forum is designed to provide a common platform for different interests in the North, the joint consultative forum would provide a common channel for the cross-border interests and activities of different policy communities.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that strategic transport is an important element of economic and social development on this island? Given that tomorrow the Assembly will debate the regional transport strategy, and in the light of the report on co-operation on strategic transport, does the North/South Ministerial Council intend to create a sectoral group to deal with the issue? A sectoral group on strategic transport was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement and would facilitate broader discussion and Executive action, if appropriate, on North/South transportation and infrastructure.

Mr Mark Durkan: I agree that strategic transport and, more broadly, strategic infrastructure are important. We are considering the matter in the context of the reinvestment and reform initiative. The Executive are trying to prioritise the issue and are pursuing it through the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Therefore, that is a demonstration of our commitment to the issue, and our determination to use all available platforms and means to achieve progress.
The North/South Ministerial Council can recast the scope of its sectoral footprints and designate further areas of co-operation. I cannot pre-empt what consideration the Council might give to sectoral designation.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, in areas of co-operation, the provision of benefits to all sides and all people must remain the fundamental principle of the North/South Ministerial Council?

Mr Mark Durkan: The North/South Ministerial Council’s annual report, when Members receive copies of it, will advertise strongly that all the work undertaken provides benefit to everyone involved. It also provides benefits for the many people who insist on not being involved but are happy to reap those benefits and positive by-products of the Council’s work.
The annual report promises to be the basis on which to continue the Council’s work. Mr Armstrong referred to areas of co-operation. People co-operate because it is in their interest to formulate better ideas together, to achieve economies of scale, to promote best practice and to take advantage of the variety of policy synergies. Therefore, the North/South Ministerial Council’s work addresses mutual benefit and common purpose.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr P J Bradley: I pay tribute to all concerned for the positive work done by the North/South Ministerial Council since its first meeting at the end of the previous century. What areas are being considered as suitable alternatives to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission for inclusion as a North/South body?

Mr Mark Durkan: As I stated earlier, the Council asked the Ministers and Departments most immediately involved to consider the possible replacements for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Although there has been consultation to determine other activity in the remit of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, and in the remit of the newly created Minister of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, further consultation is necessary. Officials from the relevant Departments, and from the Centre group, will consider the alternative as a matter of urgency and will bring specific proposals to a future Council meeting. Some of the obvious candidates for consideration include marine research and sea fisheries. However, there must be further discussion and consideration.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, your predecessor made a reference in response to a point of order of mine. He said that I could ask questions of the Deputy First Minister on a matter that did not appear to me to relate to the responsibilities of Ministers in this place. Will you advise me which Standing Order entitles Members to ask questions of Ministers that are not their responsibility?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I shall read Hansard and get back to you on that issue.

North/South Ministerial Council: Language

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on language, which was held on 14 June 2002 in Dublin.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I wish to report on the fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in language sectoral format, held on Friday 14 June 2002 in Farmleigh, Dublin. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I attended the meeting as an Executive representative, with the accompanying Minister, Ms Bairbre de Brún. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Eamon Ó Cuív, Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, who also chaired the meeting. Ms de Brún has approved the report, and it is made on her behalf also.
The meeting began with oral progress reports on the body’s activities by Seosamh Mac Donncha, chief executive of Foras na Gaeilge, and George Holmes, the deputy chief executive of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch. The report covered areas such as corporate and business planning, the activity report for 2002, the equality scheme, the code of conduct for board members, and administrative issues on staffing and accommodation.
The Council welcomed the progress of the North/ South Language Body and its two agencies, as well as the volume of work that those agencies carried out to date. The Council received updates on the business plans of Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch.
The business plan for Foras na Gaelige describes the activities that it intends to undertake in 2002 to address the key challenges and objectives in its strategic plan, as well as the resources that it will employ. That includes the work to be undertaken on: state culture and heritage; communications and marketing, community and business; education services such as the English/Irish dictionary; and corporate planning, which includes the establishment of a Belfast office.
The business plan for 2002 for Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch is aligned with its corporate plan 2001-03 on four strategic themes: linguistic diversity; culture; education; and public understanding of Ulster-Scots language and culture. That plan identifies resources, objectives, key deliverables, targets and impacts associated with activities that are related to the four themes. Those activities will include projects such as: a tape-recorded survey of native speakers; production of a textbook for written Ulster-Scots; compilation of a dictionary; a programme of cultural activities and development of formal academic courses.
The Council considered and noted the progress reports on the corporate planning issues that relate to Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch, and it looked forward to the presentation of the finalised corporate plans for both agencies at the next language sector North/South Ministerial Council meeting.
The Council considered and approved the content of the draft activity reports for both agencies for the period 2 December 1999 to 31 December 2000. Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch’s activities during the year included the creation of the first ever three-year strategy for the agency and a partnership agreement between the agency and the University of Ulster to establish the Institute of Ulster-Scots Studies at Magee College.
The Council also noted the draft unaudited accounts for both agencies, and noted that further work is required before the statement of accounts for the language body can be submitted to the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions for formal audit.
The Council considered and approved the draft equality scheme for the language body, and that has been subjected to public consultation. The Council agreed to submit the draft equality scheme to the Equality Commission, and approved an amalgamated code of conduct for the language body’s board members.
The Council agreed to meet again in this sectoral format in Northern Ireland in October or November 2002.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I thank the Minister for his report and all those who were involved in its production. There has clearly been an attempt to progress matters apace. I am particularly pleased to see the emphasis on Ulster Scots and the work that has been done for the board. I was disappointed to note that there was no mention of filling the post of chief executive of the Ulster-Scots Agency. Given that the North/South Ministerial Council approved the filling of that vacancy on 7 December 2001 and the Department has not yet advertised it, will the Minister tell the House what is causing the delay, when the post will be advertised, and when the position might be filled?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: On 7 December 2001 the process for appointing a chief executive was approved, and it will be completed shortly. The agency has an obligation to fill this key post. A steering group has been set up that includes representatives from the two sponsor Departments and the board. PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed by the board to handle the recruitment process. The group met recently, and I look forward to the recruitment process coming to fruition.

Dr Ian Adamson: I congratulate the North/South Ministerial Council for holding its meeting in such a beautiful cultural treasure as the former Guinness home at Farmleigh.
Coud A speir at the Meinister whit he thinks is the neist stap forrit for Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch?
Could I ask the Minister what he thinks is the next step forward for the Ulster-Scots Agency?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The agency is responsible and answerable for its own actions by agreement with the Department and the North/South Ministerial Council, and through them to the House. The agency has a three-year corporate plan, which has recently been reviewed and extended to 2005. It sets out four strategic themes on linguistic diversity, culture, education and public understanding. The agency is taking the following steps: a tape-recorded survey of native speakers; a textbook; a dictionary; a programme of cultural activity; and the development of formal academic courses. Unlike Foras na Gaeilge and its predecessor Bord na Gaeilge, the Ulster-Scots Agency has been in existence for only two and a half years, and it has made enormous strides.
The agency is an implementation body; it implements the policy determined by the Department in consultation with the House and through the North/South Ministerial Council. One of the next steps forward will be to focus and refine that policy, and the agency is ready for that. The Department should focus its policy drive on efforts to support and reinforce the work of the agency. That will be done in the same way as the Department has focused on policy for football, libraries and other areas. The "future search" process will begin in September and will be completed by Christmas. The Department will define work with the agency and ensure that each element feels some ownership of the process. In September the agency plans a forward surge in the implementation plan. The agency’s policy framework will be worked out in tandem with the implementation plan.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Some time ago, Dr Adamson asked the Minister how many times the linguistic diversity branch of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had met with the Ulster-Scots language groups. The Minister said that there had been five meetings. However, the Ulster-Scots Language Society wrote subsequently to the permanent secretary in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to seek clarification. The answer revealed that there had been no meetings with Ulster-Scots language groups. None of the five meetings that the permanent secretary identified, concerned language policy, which is the remit of the branch, and two of the meetings on the list were with the Apprentice Boys of Derry. Will the Minister acknowledge that he misled the Assembly and that there have been no meetings in the past year on the Ulster-Scots policy? Will he set the record straight?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Morrow, the question is not directly related to the Minister’s statement. I am unclear as to whether you are in order. However, if the Minister wishes to respond, I leave it in his hands.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am sure that the Minister would want to respond.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will attempt to reply. Having Mr Morrow present for a language or Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure event is rare indeed.
Several meetings have taken place between the Department and the Ulster-Scots Agency. There has also been correspondence between the Department and that body. Mr Morrow makes a distinction between the language and the agency which is not clear. I will check the record for the quotations that concern him. The Member needs to be absolutely sure what he is asking about. For example, do his comments relate to the question that I was asked originally?
I had a meeting in the Department around the end of June with the Ulster-Scots Agency and the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council. Several bodies are involved, and there is cross-membership. For example, Mr Nelson McCausland, of the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council, members of the Ulster-Scots Agency, including John Laird and others were present at that meeting. The meetings, and a large body of correspondence, are on the record. Those meetings are formal meetings that take place in locations such as Belfast city hall on a fairly regular basis. My special adviser and I attend.
It might be helpful for Mr Morrow to note that the overarching policy is defined by the agreement and the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. With regard to the Irish language in particular, the British Government signed up in the agreement to
"where appropriate and where people so desire it: take resolute action to promote the language; facilitate and encourage the use of the language".
Now that the British Government have signed the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, I take part II of that Charter to refer to Ulster Scots as well as the Irish language. Therefore, based on part II of the Charter and the agreement, the overarching policy for Ulster Scots also requires the Government to
"where appropriate and where people so desire it: take resolute action to promote the language; facilitate and encourage the use of the language; .. seek to remove, where possible, restrictions".
The Department will seek to refine that policy during the autumn through a process with the constituency in full. The Ulster-Scots language is a part of the constituency; it is by no means most or all of it, but it is an important part. I will work with Ulster-Scots activists as we refine the policy, seeking to use the plan for the implementation body, which is essentially what the Ulster-Scots Agency is.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the permanent secretary wrote to a body to say that what the Minister said was not true. Surely the permanent secretary and the Minister cannot both be right. There must be some way to find out the truth.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Minister has indicated that he will check the records and report to the House on the matter.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis as. Tá mé iontach sásta go bhfuil obair na comhairle ag gabháil ar aghaidh ar an leibhéal seo.
I welcome the fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in language sectoral format. I ask the Minister to consider providing future ministerial statements on these meetings bilingually — in English and Irish — for the benefit of Members who may wish to avail of them in that format.
When will the finalised corporate plan of Foras na Gaeilge be made public, and can the Minister provide a progress report on the establishment of the Belfast office? Sin an méid.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I understand that Foras na Gaeilge has acquired an office in Queen Street, Belfast, and that it intends to station the deputy chief executive and the director of education there. The draft corporate plan will be available soon for presentation to the North/South Ministerial Council, I hope that it will be ready for the next meeting.
As for bilingual presentation, I present the plans as they are. As Gaelic is the working language of Foras na Gaeilge, I am sure that it can present its corporate plan in Gaelic, but I cannot be certain. My report comes as you see it.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: The Minister was right when he said that last year the United Kingdom Government signed and ratified the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Under that charter the Government committed itself to consult, and take into account the views of, the Ulster-Scots language movement. Will he admit that his own civil servants in the linguistic diversity branch, who are responsible for language policy in Northern Ireland, did not meet or liaise with the Ulster-Scots Language Society or the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council even once during the past year? Will he acknowledge that that is clearly a breach of the charter?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not directly related to the ministerial statement. I will allow the Minister to make his own judgement.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Perhaps Mr Hutchinson was not here for the previous answer. What do we mean by "the language movement"? Do we define it as the Ulster-Scots Language Society? Is it the Ulster-Scots Language Society with the heritage movement? Or do we define it as the whole Ulster-Scots language constituency, which is broadly represented through the Ulster-Scots Agency, our implementation body?
Mr Hutchinson should be aware that there is a sizeable constituency of native speakers who regard themselves as being somewhat marginalized by what they see as a middle-class, academic, Belfast-based, English-speaking wing of the constituency. It is important that the entire constituency be represented, and their views taken into account.
As far as honing and refining policy is concerned, policy is defined by those sections of the Belfast Agreement concerning rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity, and is carried through by the European charter. That is the overarching policy. Of course, it is proper and appropriate that we should look to refine that policy, and now is the time to do that.
The agency has made enormous strides over the last two and a half years, and now is the time for another step forward. The way to do that is through a process that we have used in other sections and sectors of the Department: a "future search" process. I will look to further refine the policy in the autumn to allow the agency to implement it. Within that, the entire constituency will be represented.
We have had ongoing discussions with Members. However, if someone says that today he is the language, and not the heritage, society but tomorrow he will be the heritage, and not the language, society, it is difficult to distinguish. It is in Belfast; it is a small constituency. We are not always clear exactly which group we are talking to. However, we deal with the implementation body — the Ulster-Scots Agency.

Mr Wilson Clyde: Can the Minister give a commitment that he intends to move towards equal funding for Ulster-Scots and Irish language and culture? Will he also indicate the timescale in which he intends that position of equality to be reached?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As far as funding under devolution and under the agreement is concerned, Ulster-Scots contributions pre-devolution were £118,000, and, post-devolution, we are projected to go to £1·6 million. We have increased the funding approximately tenfold. That is important.
This is not about money, however. We are often inclined to condense arguments and movements down to money. Ulster Scots is at a different stage of development vis-à-vis Irish. Foras na Gaeilge took over the old Bord ne Gaeilge; it took over the terminology committee, a publishing house and an education support movement. That was an advanced, sophisticated group that had been going for approximately 150 years, 50 years in its current form. Ulster Scots is in a different situation; it is largely up to date and, with some exceptions, is primarily an oral tradition. We have been seeing Ulster Scots grow during the last two and a half years.
It would be wrong simply to say that because Irish gets so many million pounds, Ulster Scots should get the same. Under parity of esteem, which is equal respect, we will ensure that everybody gets equality of opportunity and equality of treatment and that funding will be according to need. Need is the key determinant factor. To date, the Ulster-Scots Agency and the Ulster-Scots movement have been funded according to need, and then some.
We now take the next step forward and consider policy development. I welcome input from Mr Clyde, Mr Morrow and Mr Roger Hutchinson and their support for Ulster Scots as a language and a movement. I will ensure that they are invited to engage in the process, and they can put forward their ideas for developing the Ulster-Scots language and culture then. It is important that we refine the policy. That will have resource implications, and we will look at those in due course. Need is always the guiding principle. There must be equality of opportunity and equity of treatment in dealing with that need, and we must be guided by equal respect.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Ulster-Scots Agency has been extremely unhappy with the interventions of civil servants from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in its work, which are seen as unhelpful and intrusive? Will the Minister also acknowledge that such concerns have been expressed directly to him, and will he comment on the basis of those concerns?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Kane, I must remind you and all Members that those questions are not related directly to the statement. For that reason, I will leave it up to the Minister whether he responds.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am happy to respond to Mr Kane, who has shown an interest in Ulster Scots over the past two and a half years. I do not agree that the Department’s actions have been unhelpful and intrusive. The Department is here to support the agency, as it is here to support Foras na Gaeilge. They are essentially about running their own affairs and constituencies. We only step in if they ask for our help. There have been occasions over the past two and a half years when our help has been sought and has been readily given.
There are teething problems, to be expected in a new body. It has made progress, but we all accept that it has still some way to go. It has still to appoint a full-time chief executive — Mr ONeill asked about that earlier. That is a pressing need and has been for some time. It also has to get full-time staff. It has identified Raphoe for its office in the Irish Republic. It has offices on a short-term lease in Belfast, and it has to move forward.
There will always be people who will say that something is unhelpful or intrusive. Mr Kane would not expect me to allow bodies to carry on doing exactly what they want without any overview. Mr Kane would complain if I were to do that with the Irish language, just as Mr McElduff would complain if I were to do that with Ulster Scots. There must be an element of accountability, not least for the resources that taxpayers are devoting to both those organisations.
The Ulster-Scots Agency has made progress, and it has also made mistakes. It will continue to make progress, and I will support, reinforce and sustain progress on Ulster Scots.

Mr David Hilditch: The Ulster-Scots Agency and the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council have initiated the development of a strategic plan for Ulster-Scots culture, which will complement the existing plan for the Ulster-Scots language. That will bring together and build on previous work undertaken by both bodies and is due to be completed by the end of September. Will the Minister assure us that adequate resources will be secured to enable that plan to be implemented, and will he acknowledge that the differential between the funding of the Ulster-Scots language and culture and the Gaelic language and culture is discriminatory, is a breach of the equality agenda and cannot be sustained?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will take the last point first. It is not discriminatory. One body is not funded according to the funding of another body — it is not the case that if Irish does well, Ulster-Scots does well; if Irish does badly, Ulster-Scots does badly. It is done according to need and to ensure that everyone is given the same equality of opportunity and has equity of treatment and parity of esteem, which is equality of respect. Everyone is given the same opportunity to go forward.
By Mr Hilditch’s argument, if the Irish body made a bad case for funding, Ulster Scots would suffer, and I do not accept that. Foras na Gaeilge is essentially the old Bord na Gaeilge, which has been operating in the Irish Republic for over 50 years, plus its constituent parts. In effect, there was a ready-made department, and the funding reflects that.
The Ulster-Scots Agency began from a standing start. The funding that I have argued for and obtained for Ulster Scots is now 10 times what it was two and a half years ago before devolution. That is a measure of the benefits of devolution.
Ulster Scots, like Irish, benefits from the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement, through its references to Irish and the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, ensured that Ulster Scots was recognised formally for the first time as a language. The United Kingdom Government signed and ratified the charter last year. Ulster Scots is defined as a language under the European charter, and that is the end of the argument. Two and a half years ago there were arguments about whether it was a language.
There is debate, argument and a bit of jostling in the Ulster-Scots constituency. However, it is important that those people who have carried the torch for so long make room for others who have an interest, not least the native speakers who sometimes feel that their movement, culture, heritage and tradition are being hijacked. I am anxious to avoid that.
As regards policies for bodies such as the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council, they are free-standing organisations, so they can perform as they wish. I am responsible for the Ulster-Scots Agency, which implements departmental policy in consultation with the North/South Ministerial Council. Although it has performed that function, it has been concerned primarily with getting off the ground. I shall remind Members of some of its work.
It aims to produce an Ulster-Scots textbook and to compile an Ulster-Scots dictionary, because neither exists at present. Those are glaring needs, but their absence is understandable, given that to date the language has been preserved through oral tradition. Its tape-recorded survey of native speakers will be important, because when native speakers die, we lose the language. The programme to develop cultural activities, making essential connections with the Ulster-Scots diaspora, is crucial also. Those projects are in the early stages of development.
I have highlighted to the agency the glaring need for capacity building in the Ulster-Scots constituency, because several groups have grown up but are not getting the support that they merit and require. They do not have sufficient skills, so they are unable to chase funding from the Ulster-Scots Agency or other bodies.
Funding is available: the question is how much the agency is spending. There should not be an argument about money. There is an opportunity for the Ulster-Scots Agency, and Ulster-Scots as a movement, a people, a culture and a heritage, to develop rather than argue about money. As long as I am in the job, I shall ensure that there is parity of esteem, equal respect, equality of opportunity and equity of treatment. It is my job to ensure that those requirements are met.

Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill: Second Stage

Mr Denis Haughey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill (NIA 20/01) be agreed.
It is an understatement to say that I am pleased that the debate on this profoundly important Bill is taking place. It has taken a good deal longer to bring the Bill to the House than we had hoped, but it is important that the Assembly begin to examine it before the summer recess.
This is a significant initiative, so it was important to take the time to get it right. The credibility of this important public office would have been damaged if we had rushed through ill-prepared or inadequate legislation that would require amendments after a short period.
The Bill includes significant powers for the commissioner, so safeguards, checks and balances had to be introduced. It was difficult to obtain unanimous agreement on those provisions among the other Departments and the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Office was concerned about the breadth and scope of the powers, especially the power of entry that we propose to give to the commissioner for children. We have managed, however, to ensure that an effective power of entry is included in the Bill and have secured the Northern Ireland Office’s agreement to that.
Other Departments, notably the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, had concerns about the Bill. Those Departments were concerned at the Bill’s wide scope of powers, which includes giving the commissioner discretion to investigate events from a child’s past. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister regarded it as essential that the commissioner should have that power because the abuse or neglect of children causes much emotional trauma, which takes time to resolve. A considerable time often passes before an individual makes his or her complaint to the appropriate authority. One cannot ignore the past, but the commissioner’s main focus will be on the present and the future.
The significance of the Bill is twofold. First, it is the most important piece of Northern Ireland legislation that affects children and young people since the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It is a watershed in society’s attitude to children and young people. It marks the point at which we move away from the traditional, yet narrow, focus on children’s welfare to a broader and more rounded appreciation of the importance of children’s rights and their best interests.
Secondly, the Bill is a clear demonstration of the value and effectiveness of the Good Friday Agreement and the institutions that stem from it. It is not a parity measure copied or imported from Westminster. It is a unique Northern Ireland measure that reflects local priorities that have been determined by the Executive and the Assembly. It has overwhelming support across the political spectrum and across the population of Northern Ireland.
Above all, the Bill is a measure that reflects the value that is placed on children, not merely as adults-in- waiting or adults-in-preparation, but as important members of society in their own right who have a valuable and enriching contribution to make. The Bill will place Northern Ireland ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom, and it would have been a long time before anything like this was introduced under direct rule.
On 29 January 2001, the First Minister and the former Deputy First Minister announced their intention to appoint a commissioner for children and young people for Northern Ireland as part of a wider children’s strategy. In that statement, they made clear their commitment to establish an office of commissioner that would place Northern Ireland at the leading edge of international best practice in safeguarding and promoting the rights and interests of children and young people. That was and remains an ambitious target, but the Bill will fully achieve what OFMDFM set out to do. We took some time to develop the Bill to ensure that we got it right and that it met those requirements and targets.
The Bill is the result of a good deal of hard work. It is based on the outcome of comprehensive local and international research, as well as extensive deliberations with Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and a wide range of public bodies. I pay tribute to the small group of hard-working and hard-pressed officials in OFMDFM who carried the burden of this and worked themselves to a standstill to get the Bill to where it is today.
Other key factors helped to shape the Bill. The first of those was a comprehensive and innovative consultation process that brought together key stakeholders, including children and young people, to develop OFMDFM’s proposals in consensual partnership between the Administration and those who work with, are concerned with and are concerned for children. As a result of that process, OFMDFM issued more than 12,000 copies of the main consultation document and more than 250,000 summary leaflets in August 2001.
We received requests for the documents from all over the world. Responses to the consultation came from a wide cross-section of opinion. We received some interesting and artistic impressions from three-and four-year olds of what the commissioner should be like. We also received well-thought-out and reasoned arguments from older members of society.
Some children whom the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consulted opined that the commissioner should be like Santa Claus. That raised a smile, but it was a serious comment. Those children wanted the commissioner to be a benevolent, kindly figure to whom they could look with confidence in order to get something of benefit for themselves.
Another child opined that the commissioner should be able to dance. That raised some smiles, but it was a serious comment. The child was saying that the commissioner should be in tune with youth culture and should know the things that are important to young people and the things that they enjoy and value. Another child opined that the commissioner should have red hair — I am still trying to work that one out, but, no doubt, we will find that it was also a serious comment.
All that information helped to inform the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s thinking on the Bill. The consultation proposals received widespread support, and I thank everyone who responded.
One aspect of the consultation was an outstanding success: in April 2001, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister established a non-governmental organisation forum to give advice based on its expertise and experience of the issues affecting children and young people. The forum has proved an invaluable source of information and practical support, and I thank everyone who played a part in it. I also thank forum members for their support. I look forward to continuing the relationship during the pre-consultation exercise, which is already under way on the children’s strategy.
The other key input into developing the Bill was the work of the Committee of the Centre. I thank the Committee for its helpful and constructive contribution to our deliberations and, particularly, for its patience and understanding of the reasons for the delay in submitting the proposals. I also thank the Committee for its support for our work and objectives. The Committee invested time and effort on the subject, and it produced a comprehensive report that was instrumental in informing our proposals. Few, if any, of the Committee’s recommendations differ substantively from the proposals in the Bill. That is clear evidence of the value of the Committee’s role in policy development. I look forward to working in partnership with the Committee on the Bill and on other matters.
Our main aims in the Bill are to provide for the following: first, a society in which children’s views are respected and in which their fundamental human rights are promoted, protected and upheld; secondly, a co-ordinated and holistic approach to children’s rights across all Departments and public authorities; thirdly, the active participation of children and young people on matters affecting them and their rights; and, fourthly, more effective ways for children and young people to obtain help if their rights have been denied or if they have been neglected or abused.
There are five key features that must be reflected in the role and remit of the commissioner if we are to meet those aims. First, there must be a balance between independence and accountability. There must be independence, so that the commissioner can carry out his or her functions effectively, balanced by accountability for taxpayers’ money, which the commissioner will spend, and for the proper discharge of the important duties to be vested by the Administration in his or her office.
Secondly, the commissioner’s paramount consideration — and I stress the word "paramount" — must be the rights of children and young people. That will be the unique and defining character of the office of the commissioner, which the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister proposes to establish.
Thirdly, the commissioner must have a broad remit that covers all children in Northern Ireland and every public authority whose activities affect children. Fourthly, the commissioner must have a comprehensive list of functions, with the flexibility to enable him or her to tackle the key issues of the day for children. Fifthly, there must be strong powers to make those functions effective, balanced by the appropriate safeguards, checks and balances.
Our proposals aim to reach those requirements. The Bill provides for appointment by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, with accountability to the Assembly through OFMDFM by way of annual reports and reports to the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, in day-to-day operation, the commissioner will be independent and free to determine his or her priorities with regard to his or her duties.
The Bill makes clear the main aim of the commissioner, which is to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young people, and sets out several guiding principles. Chief among those is the requirement that the rights of the child must be the commissioner’s paramount consideration. However, there are other important principles, including a requirement for the commissioner to have regard to the role of parents when deciding how best to carry out his or her functions.
The Bill proposes a comprehensive remit for the commissioner; it will cover all children and young people up to the age of 18, as well as young people up to the age of 21 who are being looked after by, or are in the care of, a public authority. We have sought to ensure that the commissioner’s remit includes the full spectrum of public authorities. That includes authorities that are responsible for devolved and non-devolved matters, including juvenile justice. That was achieved following lengthy discussions with the Northern Ireland Office, principally on the safeguards to be included in the Bill. Those discussions resulted in an agreed position without any significant reduction in the range or application of the functions that we proposed to invest in the Bill.
The Bill allows for a comprehensive, wide-ranging set of functions, more extensive than any exercised by any comparable body that we are aware of. Those include promoting the rights and best interests of children and young people; acting as a watchdog on public authorities; and ombudsman and advocacy functions. That set of functions will give the commissioner the flexibility needed to ensure that the rights and best interests of children are properly considered in situations ranging from individual cases to the development of policy and legislation. As a measure of the importance that we attach to these functions, many are proposed as statutory duties of the commissioner rather than merely optional functions.
The Bill sets out the powers at the commissioner’s disposal, and, once again, those are comprehensive. They range from general informal powers, whose use carries few restrictions, to more formal and robust powers that may only be used in a limited range of circumstances — that is with appropriate checks, balances and safeguards.
For example, the Bill allows for three types of investigation. First, there is a general informal investigation, which can cover any subject and has no set procedures. It does not involve formal powers to compel the production of evidence, and it has no specific remedy process. Secondly, there is an intermediate level of investigation, which may be used for certain commissioner functions. It requires set procedures to be followed and is remedied in the form of a notice and a naming-and-shaming procedure, but it does not have associated formal powers to compel the production of evidence. Thirdly, there is a full, formal investigation. That will involve the same procedures and remedy as for intermediate investigations, but in a formal investigation the commissioner will have similar powers to those of the High Court — to compel the production of evidence, legal power of entry and legal sanction against any obstruction.
The powers that have been proposed for the commissioner include more than simple investigative powers. Significant powers have been proposed in areas such as the investigation of complaints, the review of the arrangements for handling complaints, advocacy, inspection and whistle-blowing. That includes the handling of individual cases under such arrangements. Those powers will ensure that the commissioner can gain a comprehensive picture of how authorities deal with matters that affect children’s rights and interests.
The Bill also proposes to give the commissioner a key role in legal proceedings through providing assistance to children, bringing cases and intervening in cases, and also acting as an amicus curiae — a "friend of the court" or expert witness. In that respect, the proposals will give the commissioner significantly greater powers than the corresponding arrangements in the Republic of Ireland, Wales, Norway or any other international models that we considered.
Members might think, with some justification, that the provisions that set out the commissioner’s powers are somewhat complex. The Bill that establishes the powers and role of the commissioner in Norway has one and a half pages of legislative proposals. The Northern Ireland Bill is much longer than that. Although we acknowledge that the Bill is longer and more complex, we believe that it is important to give the commissioner the full range of tools necessary to do his or her job effectively, ranging from the equivalent of a small screwdriver to a power hammer. That is what we have attempted to do in the Bill.
Having emphasised the powers that would be available to the commissioner, it is also important to emphasise the safeguards, checks and balances that are built into the Bill. There are key provisions to ensure that the commissioner could not usurp the proper role of parents in safeguarding the rights and best interests of children; nor could he or she duplicate the role of existing statutory authorities. Other provisions would ensure that the commissioner could not act in both an ombudsman’s role and an advocacy role in the same case. That is necessary in order to maintain natural justice. It reflects the fact that an ombudsman’s functions must be exercised in a neutral fashion, whereas advocacy functions are not neutral, but are exercised on behalf of the child or young person. There are also provisions to ensure that the strongest powers — the power of entry and the power to compel the production of evidence — are used only when there are clear grounds for doing so.
Our proposals will establish an office of the commissioner for children and young people for Northern Ireland that will be second to none. It will make Northern Ireland the focus of international attention, which will bring it prestige and a reputation. By setting high standards with respect to how the state should protect and safeguard children, the establishment of the kind of office that is proposed will be a catalyst for progress and change in other jurisdictions. The Assembly owes it to children and young people to provide them with a commissioner who will help make a change for the better in their lives. The Bill is the tool with which to make that happen. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am pleased to give a broad welcome to the Bill. I hope — as I believe the junior Minister implied — that it can, and will, demonstrate the benefits and difference that devolution can make.
Since time is limited, I want to concentrate on two areas of concern that relate to the remit of the commissioner. My first concern is whether the commissioner will, in practice, be sufficiently sensitive to the role, authority and rights of parents. There is strong evidence to show that a stable family background is arguably one of the most important impacts on a child’s welfare throughout his or her life. That was shown by the 1994 ‘Exeter Family Study’ and many other pieces of social science research.
There are, of course, hundreds of thousands of families across Northern Ireland, but there will only be one commissioner. Therefore, it is vital that the commissioner does not cut across or undermine the good functioning of families or the relationships within them.
I am pleased that, according to clause 2(3)(a) of the Bill, in determining the functions of the commissioner there will be regard to
"the importance of the role of parents in the upbringing and development of their children".
However, I would have liked a more explicit balance between the rights of the child, on which the junior Minister spoke, and the rights and responsibilities of parents.
It is true that a tiny minority of parents abuse their children in some form or other, but we must also recognise that the vast majority of parents are good parents and want to be helped to be better. Therefore, I suggest a parents’ forum to match the provision for a children and young people’s forum.
I wonder why clause 2(1) talks of "the rights and best interests", yet clause 4(1) mentions "the rights or best interests". That may or may not be a significant difference. We want to be enlightened about that.
We must also consider the accountability mechanisms. Once the commissioner is in post, how will that person relate back to this House, and how can adequate democratic oversight of his or her functioning be ensured?
My second concern on the remit of the commissioner centres on the definition of "child". The preamble of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child speaks of
"safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before and after birth".
There is some recognition of that point in domestic law. For example, under section 25 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 1945, it is an offence to intentionally destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive before it has an existence independent of the mother.
There is an abundance of evidence from health and scientific research that the mother’s diet during pregnancy has a crucial impact on the well-being of the child, both at birth and thereafter. Given that, I want the commissioner’s remit stretched to include provision of information to expectant parents, promotion of research on what encourages good fetal development, and general promotion of the health of expectant parents. Therefore, I urge that the commissioner’s remit include all children living in Northern Ireland, from before birth until the age of 18, or 21 where a young person has been looked after by the public authorities.
Subject to those qualifications, I support the Bill.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the Bill. We have been raising awareness of children’s issues in various debates in the past two days, and it would be remiss of me not to mention yesterday’s announcement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the children’s fund, and the positive effect that that will have on children and their families.
I am especially pleased to see that a rights-based approach has been adopted, and that the Bill draws so much from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a demonstration of the high priority given to the care and protection of young people in Northern Ireland. Judging by the favourable public reaction, there can be little doubt that the Bill has been widely welcomed across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland as a positive step.
The commissioner in Northern Ireland can be seen only as an investment in the future of our children and young people. Children’s rights have for too long been overlooked in our society, and the commissioner will have a vital role to play in promoting and highlighting their rights and their best interests. I am particularly pleased that instead of "welfare" the term "best interests" was used. That term is right, since the commissioner must always seek to promote the best interests of the child.
Furthermore, it is vital that the commissioner helps children to cut through red tape and to find their way through the bureaucracy of public authorities. For that reason, I am pleased that the commissioner has the power to assist children and to provide advice in making complaints. Beyond that, an effective commissioner must have strong powers of investigation, together with the ability to uphold children’s rights. I am delighted that the commissioner will be given such powers. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made a commitment that the commissioner will be at the cutting edge of best practice.
This Bill confers unparalleled powers upon the commissioner to bring proceedings on behalf of children, which is essential in protecting their interests. The commissioner is also empowered to conduct investigations — not just toothless ones, but real investigations with the power to call persons and papers, to enter premises and to seize documents. All those powers are necessary to ensure that children receive the protection that they deserve, and all of them are found in the Bill.
Moreover, I am pleased that the commissioner can name and shame public authorities that do not vindicate children and that do not place their rights and best interests to the fore. The commissioner’s powers, therefore, are greater than those of the Children’s Ombudsman in the South, of the Norwegian Commissioner and of any commissioner of whom I am aware. That clearly shows the emphasis that we in the North place on children’s rights.
Many of us were concerned at the delay in introducing the Bill to the Assembly. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have explained that the delay was caused, in large part, by negotiations with the Northern Ireland Office and with other Departments. What were the issues and how were they resolved? What consequences will the delay have for the Administration’s other work on the children’s commissioner?
The commissioner must work with children’s commissioners in other jurisdictions on child abuse and on protecting children from sex offenders. The children’s strategy was mentioned by the junior Minister and we look forward to its completion soon. It must be in parallel with the commissioner for children to provide a holistic approach and to reflect the willingness of the Executive to award priority to children’s issues.
The enhanced role of the new children’s commissioner, as set out in the Bill, will be pivotal in renewing confidence for future generations of our young people. It will integrate child-friendly policies and cross-departmental co-ordination into the structure of Government on issues that affect children. The all-party working group on children, of which I am a former Chairperson, carried out its own consultation in which 60 children from all backgrounds were brought together. The junior Minister mentioned size, height, colour of hair and how much a commissioner should be paid. Alongside those, many children wished that one young person be on the interview panel for the commissioner for children. Perhaps that could be taken on board.
I owe a debt of gratitude to all the children who were involved in the consultation and to all the organisations in the all-party group, including the Members, for their contribution to the consultation on the commissioner for children.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel is meeting, and I apologise that I shall be unable to stay for the remainder of the debate.
I support the Bill.

Mrs Iris Robinson: I too welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill.
Our young people are our greatest resource, and, as a mother of three and a grandmother of two, I am committed to do all that I can to protect them. I welcome the idea of a commissioner as a champion for children; it is long overdue. However, I also recognise that many of us, in households across the Province, are champions for children.
I do, however, have some concerns about the Bill. I fear that the definition of a child offered in clause 24(1)(a) is too narrow and ignores many children whose rights we must uphold. I am referring to unborn children — they too have rights:
"the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."
That is not only my opinion; it is a quote from the preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The commissioner’s remit should include all children in Northern Ireland from before birth to the age of 18.
It is accepted universally that unborn children deserve protection at the mother’s workplace. If employees can be exposed to, for example, radiation, there is a legal duty on employers to provide information and training about health risks. Claims are taken against medical staff or third parties if a child injured in the womb is born with a disability. Cigarette packets carry warnings that smoking can damage the health of an unborn child. A mother’s diet during pregnancy can also affect a child’s health. Folic acid or iron deficiencies result in neural tube and brain defects. Lack of vitamins causes visual and skeletal abnormalities. A baby born at 40 weeks and weighing more than 2·5 kg is more likely to grow steadily and suffer less illness than others. Meanwhile, evidence suggests that heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity and diabetes might all be related to birth weight and to growth in the womb. Smoking is associated with smaller babies, miscarriages, infant death and illness and long-term learning difficulties. Toxic substances and chemicals affect unborn children. Examples include fumes from paint, insecticides and cleaning solvents. Caffeine and alcohol can also be dangerous. Foetal alcohol syndrome results in decreased growth and brain and facial abnormalities.
Those examples highlight areas in which a commissioner for children could prove effective in defending the rights of children, even before they are born.
In 2000, 93 children were stillborn in Northern Ireland, and 109 died in the first year of life. The cause given for almost half of the stillbirths was ill-defined conditions originating in the perinatal period. The commissioner should be able to take the lead in further investigation and research to prevent such deaths. He or she could advise parents when, for instance, a disability is detected during pregnancy. In that situation, information and support is invaluable from the moment of diagnosis. Members will recall the recent birth of conjoined twins across the water. Should a commissioner for children not be given input to assist in such trying circumstances?
It is to be hoped that those examples illustrate how important it is that a commissioner for children’s responsibilities extend to unborn children. It is important that we have a commissioner, and I do not want the Bill to fall. However, I believe strongly that the definition of a child must be broadened. I do not wish to amend the Bill now, but I encourage those involved to reconsider that issue before it is debated in the House again. I hope that changes can be made to reflect my concerns and those of many constituents. I shall monitor the Bill closely.

Mr Barry McElduff: I welcome the Bill’s introduction; it is a complex piece of legislation. Minister Haughey acknowledged and explained the delay, and he was perhaps too kind to those quarters that resisted the Bill’s coming to the House both now and previously. I seek assurances that there will be no further delay in the establishment of the office, which will pay a pivotal role in protecting our children’s rights and best interests.
My party has consistently supported the establishment of the office of a commissioner for children that has all the necessary powers and resources to deliver fully all children’s rights, and to make a real difference to those children whose rights are denied. We welcomed the announcement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 29 January 2001 that they had the Executive’s full support to appoint an independent commissioner. That would place the North of Ireland at the cutting edge of world practice on all our children’s rights, and Minister Haughey repeated that standard today.
We are concerned to note that the Bill fails to fully realise the opportunity to meet the world-standard test in protecting children’s rights and best interests. The Bill fails to afford equal protection to all our children; they deserve to be cherished equally, and all demand protection.
However, perhaps we have a special duty to protect the rights and best interests of those children who are in the state’s care. They are often the most vulnerable children. The children’s commissioner no doubt has the potential to be a strong champion for all our children. Unfortunately, it appears that children in the care of the state will not equally enjoy the commissioner’s protection under the Bill. Children in the justice system are specifically afforded less protection, because the onus is on individual children to identify themselves so that they can be protected fully by the office. If children are being violated or bullied, if their rights are being abused while in the state’s care, it is then unimaginable that they will expose themselves further by identifying themselves to the commissioner through an individual complaint. Therefore, the question remains whether there is redress for the young person in the justice system.
I fear that the abuse of children’s rights will be allowed to continue and will perhaps be extended to other children in institutions, such as those in the justice system. That is all the more poignant given that children whom society has already failed, such as those with disabilities and with special educational needs, are often over-represented in state care and the justice system.
In January 2001, the First Minister also emphasised the intention to establish an independent children’s commissioner. I note that the legislation provides for the commissioner to be appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is crucial that the appointment must be seen to follow an independent, transparent and accountable recruitment process that meaningfully involves children and young people to guarantee the independence of the commissioner’s office.
Moreover, if we are to live up to international standards of best practice, we must ensure that rights and best interests are paramount considerations. That phrase must apply consistently in the Bill to all children. Members may return to the many resourcing issues later, but, as a member of the Committee of the Centre, I look forward to working with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take the Bill to its conclusion. Ultimately, as Minister Haughey said, the commissioner will need the full range of tools to do the job, and it is crucial that the commissioner be truly accessible to all children, not sitting in splendid isolation.

Mr Sean Neeson: I speak on behalf of Mrs Eileen Bell, who unfortunately cannot be present. I know that she and others have done much work behind the scenes on this vital issue. Like all Members, we became frustrated at the delay in bringing the legislation to the House.
I spoke to junior Minister Haughey at lunchtime, and he advised that protracted discussions with the Northern Ireland Office have contributed to the delay. The issue is of major importance to my party and me. When the structures for the Assembly were being created, we put forward, along with others, the idea of a junior Minister with responsibility for children. I am satisfied that the Bill goes a long way to deal with those issues. Junior Minister Haughey stated that the proposals are a unique Northern Ireland measure, and I welcome that. Once again it shows the importance of devolution to people in Northern Ireland.
At this time, 18 countries have children’s commissioners — many countries introduced them in order to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is difficult to make comparisons as they operate within different legal structures and have varying roles, so I appreciate the uniqueness of the proposals before us today. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified in 1991, and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 must be the basis on which children’s rights are implemented and safeguarded.
Children are citizens in their own right, and the support of the children’s commissioner grows out of a framework for children’s rights, rather than being an adult duty. Children are uniquely in need of special measures to safeguard their rights due to their lack of power and the fact that they do not have a vote.
What also pleased me is that the junior Minister referred to the commissioner as "he or she". The role of the commissioner is much more than a maternal one, and the commissioner’s support and powers to deal with day-to-day issues are vital.
I ask the Executive to consider seriously the establishment of a children and young people’s forum to relate to the work of the commissioner’s office. That forum could play an important partnership role.
Monitoring, which is referred to in the proposed legislation, is important. However, the issue must be developed to show that the legislation will be effective and also to reflect the changing needs of society. The legislation deals with an equality issue, and each Department must attach as much, if not more, importance to that as to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am delighted to get the opportunity to speak on what is, without doubt, an extremely important piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming, but, along with much of the legislation that is being rushed through on this, the penultimate day of the session, it is welcomed.
I do not need to remind Members that it was the Women’s Coalition that introduced the first, and so far, only, private Member’s Bill, recommending that Northern Ireland set up a children’s commissioner. I am glad to see that our initiative has helped to spur the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister into speedy action — that was the intention — although not as speedy as we would have liked.
This is a historic and symbolic event. We are sending a message out to kids, from our newly devolved Government, that we care. Parents too can look to the Assembly and know that a children’s commissioner will protect the rights of children.
It is a cliché to say that children are our future, but it is not a cliché to say that they are our present, which is something that we forget all too often. We have all watched the television campaigns, organised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), Barnardo’s, Fair Play for Children and Save the Children, that ask for help to prevent the abuse of society’s most vulnerable individuals. I take this opportunity to praise those organisations’ tremendous work.
We have attempted to raise our children in a society that has been torn apart by conflict. We have tried to raise them in such a way that their innocence, their enjoyment of life and their ability even to play are not taken away from them. It is the right of the child, as proclaimed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to live free from fear and to be able to have fun.
According to studies by Save the Children, poverty has never affected so many children. That is something that we must tackle. Moreover, we heard this week about reports on sectarianism from the University of Ulster that show that children as young as three-years old are affected by the hatred in our society. A champion for children has never been more essential.
The welfare of all children must be protected and promoted. That is why we need a children’s commissioner, and I welcome the Bill for that reason. I wish that I could say that the legislation is as extensive and potentially effective as that which inspired it. Unfortunately, I cannot. Phrases spring to mind such as "in name only" or "toothless tiger". Perhaps those words are too strong, but the legislation lacks some of the essential powers that we would like to see introduced.
I was interested to hear the junior Minister talk about the steps in the procedure, from informal investigations to naming and shaming and on to full, formal investigations. Although we are aware of the need to respect the role of the parents, I am slightly concerned that the children’s commissioner’s wings could be clipped. There may be so many checks and balances on the full, formal investigative powers that people will not come forward. It is good that the commissioner may have similar powers to those of the High Court, such as the ability to compel evidence to be presented. However, on what occasions can such powers be used? I am worried that the checks and balances do not ensure that the interests of the child are the priority that they should be.
While I was reading the Bill, I thought that there might be a page missing, because, without enforcement powers, the children’s commissioner will not have as much credibility or clout as he or she should have. That may be because, during the consultation process, which was very valuable and to be welcomed, enforcement powers were not really offered as an option. That is a shame, because an important opportunity to provide the children of Northern Ireland with a real champion who has real powers and real teeth is being lost. Instead, they are being offered someone who may not even have the proper authority to defend their rights.
The interests of children must be promoted, and we want to ensure that that is done. They cannot be replaced by good intentions that are diluted to produce legislation that sounds good but translates into little more than a title. We want to ensure that that is not the case. The Bill is inconsistent on what children are entitled to. The "rights and best interests" of children are mentioned in some parts of the Bill, but not in others.
In some instances, children’s welfare rather than their rights are referred to. Will the junior Minister clarify the difference between welfare and rights? I am concerned about the differential treatment of children in the criminal justice system whereby some do not enjoy the same rights as others. What are the junior Minister’s views on that?
The Bill provides for the commissioner for children and young people for Northern Ireland to be appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition hopes that that appointment will take place after a proper, independent and transparent consultation. We believe firmly that the views of children and young people should be taken into account in the process. During the event at Stormont at which children’s advice was sought, the proposal emerged that a young person should be on the interview panel.
Yesterday’s interview on ‘Stormont Live’ with Peter Clarke, the Welsh Children’s Commissioner, was interesting, because it showed that the position was created as a result of the Waterhouse Report on child abuse but was extended to incorporate other factors. Those include the opinions of children and young people on schools, taking tests, bullying and how adults treat them socially, all of which we should take into account. It reminded me that children do not feel respected by adults; they feel that their voices are not being heard. I remind the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that children must feel some ownership of the office of their commissioner. It is their commissioner, and they must feel that he or she will represent their views fairly and accurately. Children must have power to make people take account of their opinions and feelings.
A few concerns about the Bill were raised with the Women’s Coalition. One related to the need for joined-up government to ensure that, although the children’s commissioner and the children’s strategy are to be the dealt with by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the responsibility of other Departments will not be diluted or reduced. Each Department must retain huge responsibility for its aspect of work — it should not be handed over to others.
Concerns were raised about the costs to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) of implementing the legislation. What sanctions will be placed on accredited childcare organisations if they fail to report or carry out suitability checking as required by the Bill? It is important to clarify the role of NGOs. We must remember that the Bill will help to protect children only in the context of improved practices and good multi-agency co-operation.
The Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition will not withdraw its private Member’s Bill until it is convinced that the Executive’s proposals have been strengthened to take into account some of those factors.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to have an input to the Bill, because the office of the children’s commissioner will have a significant impact on the lives of children. Clause 2 states that the principal aim of the commissioner will be to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young persons. Nobody could disagree with that noble aspiration.
It is well known that the nine months a child spends in the womb affect his or her well-being for life. That is recognised through the obligation on cigarette companies to attach Government health warnings to cigarette packets. However, the Bill does not recognise properly that children’s rights must be protected before birth.
It would be futile to safeguard children from physical harm after birth, if they have already have been seriously harmed in the womb. If the children’s commissioner is to fulfil the function of safeguarding and promoting the rights and best interests of children and young people, the rights of unborn children must come within his remit.
Children are among the most vulnerable people in society. Recent child abuse cases have been witnessed on a large scale that show how vulnerable they are. We must not overlook the fact that many children are carers themselves — minors looking after minors, or young people looking after an ill or disabled parent or grandparent. The Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill must reflect on these harsh realities and seek to lighten the load where it is heaviest.
I would also like the Bill and the commissioner’s role take into account the unique difficulties in Northern Ireland. For more than 30 years, children have been manipulated by paramilitaries and have been used to do their dirty work. Punishment beatings have mostly been carried out on children and young people. The children’s commissioner’s role must be to tackle some of these terrible, daily human rights abuses.
Services for children should be overseen and monitored by the commissioner. Children in care have often been viewed as easy targets, especially in their most vulnerable state. I hope that the Bill will rectify that.
I hope that the commissioner will safeguard those rights to education that are recognised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powers should be available to combat bullying in schools and play areas and to promote the right to quality education.
We must not lose sight of our aim to protect. Seeking to empower children by making them more independent is no substitute for a loving, safe environment. Childhood is all about children developing into adults, and this growing stage must be protected. A healthy family environment is vital for the healthy development of children. The commissioner will only be one office, whereas family units exist across Northern Ireland. The family unit will continue to be the most important factor in the lives of young people and children.
Section 2(3) places an obligation on the commissioner to have regard for the importance of the role of parents. I welcome that provision, and I hope that it will be upheld in every decision taken by the commissioner. No attempt must be made by this or any other piece of legislation to undermine the vital role carried out by parents.
It is to every child’s benefit to be disciplined when deemed appropriate so he can be guided in the right way.
"Spare the rod, spoil the child."
However, the commissioner should be able to distinguish between parental discipline carried out in a loving way and physical violence that amounts to nothing less than abuse.
It is recognised that children thrive through the love and support of family life. I hope that the office of the children’s commissioner can complement the positive influence that a family unit has on bringing up children. The new commissioner’s office must demonstrate an understanding of all the needs of children — physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual.
In addition to that, the office should express a commitment to promoting the rights of the disabled, perhaps the most vulnerable of young people. Children must be allowed to be children as they learn to grow up to be adults.

Dr Joe Hendron: I welcome warmly the Bill’s introduction, which will establish a children’s commissioner in Northern Ireland. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety recommended the appointment of a children’s commissioner to act as a watchdog and promote and protect children’s interests in its inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children in Northern Ireland. Some witnesses believed firmly that this would be the most important initiative to benefit children, especially those in care and leaving care.
I have listened carefully to the various contributions and I am grateful to Ministers Haughey and Leslie for introducing the Bill.
I agree with Mrs Iris Robinson about the protection of the child in utero — before birth. Billy Armstrong also referred to that. I will not go into a detailed analysis of that debate other than to say that after conception a baby is genetically complete. Nutrition is the only extra thing needed to aid development. Members know all the arguments about 22 weeks and 28 weeks.
I also agree with Iris Robinson about the commissioner for children. My Committee has put a lot of work into that, and the Bill can be amended later. However, I support that 100%, and many members of my Committee also do.
Minister Haughey made comments about respecting children’s views. The whole question of human rights, the rights of the child and the unborn child and the participation of young children in matters that concern them are paramount.
The Health Committee produced a report on children in care and in secure accommodation. Its main recommendation was the appointment of a commissioner for children. There are two key points in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill that are relevant to the children’s commissioner: the personal advisers and the care pathway. Personal advisers will be appointed by trusts for children or young people leaving care. Even if a young person goes to live in another part of Northern Ireland, or possibly elsewhere, his personal adviser will have direct responsibility for him. A personal adviser cannot take the place of parents, but that is the intent. The care pathway is a pathway for a young person who has been in care going through the education system.
The intelligence of a child starting school at the age of five is based on his or her genetic makeup, and there is nothing that can be done about that. However, the environment that a child grows up in also affects his intelligence. Members will agree that a child growing up in a large, poor family that cannot afford healthy eating, and in which some members of the family smoke, is at a gross disadvantage compared to a child of the same age from a healthier environment whose parents are better off. Those points must be taken on board.
The number of recent cases highlighting abuse of children by those entrusted with their safety and protection was instrumental in our Committee’s decision to conduct an inquiry into the state of child protection services in Northern Ireland. Those cases fully vindicate the strong investigative powers that it is proposed be vested in the commissioner.
I pay tribute to all the childcare organisations that lobbied so effectively for a campaign for children, to all who contributed to the extensive consultation process and to Ministers Haughey and Leslie for introducing the Bill.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I welcome this important and long-awaited Bill. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister announced it in the Assembly on 29 January 2001. Its intention is to appoint a commissioner for children in Northern Ireland. The announcement has been welcomed by Members from all sides of the House.
The proposals were welcomed as a step towards ensuring that children can grow up in a society in which they are safe from exploitation and abuse, in which their rights are protected and in which their needs are met and their responsibilities are known by themselves and their parents.
After the announcement, the Committee of the Centre undertook a comprehensive inquiry to examine the role of a children’s commissioner. In June 2001, the Committee produced a report setting out several detailed recommendations. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee listened to more than 13 hours of oral evidence and questioned 51 individuals representing 26 organisations. I pay tribute to all those organisations and individuals, because they made their points sincerely and were obviously people of commitment and dedication. Those organisations included many statutory and voluntary bodies. We also heard the views of young people, and we invited representatives from Wales and Norway to tell us of their experiences.
The Committee concluded that there was an overwhelming case for appointing a commissioner for children, and it supported calls from the organisations consulted that a commissioner should be appointed as soon as possible. The Committee’s report called for a strong, independent commissioner who could look into all aspects of children’s lives and be a champion for them. A commissioner should, as it was described to the Committee, have a "helicopter view" — he should be able to see the big picture. By having that overview, the commissioner would be able to draw attention to problems, gaps and lack of proper co-operation.
The Committee was also clear that the commissioner should have a wide range of powers to investigate complaints, initiate inquiries, subpoena witnesses and compel disclosure. The Committee concluded that the commissioner must be able to support children in court cases or initiate cases, if necessary, on their behalf. However, the Committee was equally clear that although a commissioner needs powers to initiate or to intervene in legal proceedings, such powers should only be used strategically when all other means have been exhausted.
The Committee felt strongly, and was supported by the witnesses, that the role of the commissioner must extend to reserved matters. The commissioner must be able to ensure that the rights of children in the juvenile justice system are protected and that they can call on him if necessary. The Committee was pleased to note that most of the recommendations in its report were reflected in the model for a commissioner that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consulted about last September.
More importantly, however, the Committee welcomes the inclusion of those recommendations in the Bill. The Committee acknowledges that the Department has faced a difficult and complex task in getting the Bill to this Stage; it recognises that many provisions of the Bill cut across the remits of several Departments. That necessitated negotiation and agreement with other Ministers. The Committee welcomes particularly the inclusion of provisions to ensure that the role of a commissioner will extend to reserved matters. The Committee recognised that this was a major hurdle for the Department, and it supported the Department in its negotiations with the NIO to achieve that goal.
In considering the details of the Bill, we must not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve. In the course of our inquiry, we heard many shocking and dramatic statistics about the plight of some of our most vulnerable children. Particularly, we heard about the children who at birth were described as being "destined to fail". The appointment of a children’s commissioner is a first and crucial step towards breaking that cycle.
We want to see a commissioner who will be universally recognised as a champion for all children, someone who will have a high profile, be easily recognisable and accessible to all children, wherever they live or whatever their circumstances. The Committee of the Centre will consider the provisions of the Bill in detail to ensure that it results in such a champion for children. It will seek and listen to the views expressed in the House and from interested organisations and individuals. Views expressed in the Chamber seem to fall under broad headings. There will be an examination of the role of the commissioner in relation to parents and the family. The rights, best interests and welfare of children will also be addressed, as will the rights and responsibilities of parents.
The commissioner’s accountability has not been mentioned today, but it must be critically examined. Who will the commissioner report to? Who will he be accountable to? Terms such as "relevant body", which is sometimes used loosely in legislation, must also be defined. It must be made clear who the specific relevant bodies are. The care of unborn children was also mentioned forcibly in the debate. Those areas will be scrutinised by the Committee of the Centre, and it will note its concerns before the final presentation.
The greatest gift to children is to show them how much they are loved and enable them to enjoy a good, stable, secure and loving home background.

Mrs Annie Courtney: The completion of the Bill involved wide consultation that included a substantial inquiry by the Committee of the Centre, of which I am a member. The report into the proposal to appoint a commissioner for children in Northern Ireland was comprehensive and thoughtfully considered. It took into account the expert advice and opinions of groupings as diverse as the Law Society of Northern Ireland, Voices of Young People in Care, the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Society, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Derry Children’s Commission. There were also contributions from legislative bodies, social workers, charities, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and many children’s organisations and steering groups that already act as a voice for children in the voluntary sector.
Added to that extensive body of local knowledge was the voice of the Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman and the chairperson of the Health and Social Services Committee from the National Assembly for Wales. The Norwegian Government have had a Children’s Ombudsman since 1981, the first European country to have one. The lessons that they have learnt in those 21 years, and the pro-active approach that they have adopted because of their experience, were of immense value when drawing up the Bill. The National Assembly for Wales was the first Government in the United Kingdom to appoint a children’s commissioner.
Defining the terms of appointments, resources, roles and responsibilities and the duties and powers to be available to the commissioner has been crucial. Other key areas of the commissioner’s remit include independence, good practice, interfacing and accountability. The Bill is a welcome addition to the further protection of children and young people.
The commissioner will be appointed jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. He or she will act as a champion for children. It is not intended that the commissioner will usurp the role of parents or duplicate or take over the functions of other agencies.
Initially, the appointment will be for four years, with an option to renew. The maximum term will be eight years. The commissioner will keep under review the workings of the legislation and make reports to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who will in turn report to the Assembly.
The children’s commissioner will act as an advocate for children’s rights and monitor those rights in Northern Ireland. He will be the voice of young people and a champion for all young children.
The principal aim of the Bill is to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young persons. The commissioner will have a duty to create and promote new and innovative opportunities for young people to make their views heard. That could include working through schools, youth clubs and other forums, and involve the use of information technology.
Another key responsibility, which is crucial to the success of the role, is the proviso that the commissioner should work to improve the means of communication with children and young people through, for example, the promotion of language that young people understand, without jargon and formality. It is vital that children feel that they have somewhere to turn when they have an issue that they cannot discuss with parents or carers. It is also important that they receive clear answers and assurances that they are being heard. The western young people’s steering group made the point that the commissioner must be easily accessible, physically and mentally, so that young people’s minds are relaxed. The only way to do that is to communicate in a direct and equal manner that does not intimidate or confuse a child, especially one in an already vulnerable position. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the role of the commissioner was clear, unambiguous and transparent.
The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman related to the Committee details of Powerline, which exists for children in his country. It is not a hotline or a helpline, rather it is a service whereby children can discuss injustice or things that they would like changed. The Commissioner told the Committee that proposals to change legislation arise and that the material comes into the office for analysis, and it is responded to through the Internet channel. Again, that may be a useful tool to employ here.
The Committee of the Centre proposed that the interview panel should include young people, as happened in Wales. The Committee recommended that the children’s commissioner should have adequate powers to investigate complaints or to initiate investigations or inquiries in respect of any aspect of children’s rights, where other avenues of redress have failed. As the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland pointed out, there would be a legal problem if the children’s commissioner determined complaints rather than investigating or supporting the complaint. However, the Ombudsman also highlights concerns regarding the potential for fragmentation, for example, in the commissioner’s office and other bodies such as the courts, should the commissioner have too many powers. Therefore the important part of the Ombudsman’s recommendation is that the powers be employed where other avenues of redress have failed.
The commissioner’s main job will not be to upset the legislative apple cart, but he will need to have some course of action available to him where the normal procedures and systems have failed a child and further action is required.
The Bill recommends that the role of the commissioner should be to monitor the co-ordination of services between organisations that have a role in ensuring children’s rights in all organisations, including public authorities. I agree that the definition of "a child" should also include those in utero. In other words, the child should be protected from before birth. The Bill recommends that the commissioner should be independent of all existing organisations and public bodies. That is in line with proposals put forward by virtually all the organisations that gave evidence to the Committee of the Centre. That has been assessed in line with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Committee of the Centre agreed that the commissioner should receive adequate resources to carry out the role. Many organisations that gave evidence to the Committee felt that if the necessary resources were not forthcoming, the limited resources allocated would be wasted and a vital opportunity missed. However, the financial cost has been estimated. It will be £1 million with ongoing annual costs projected to be in the region of £1·9million. I welcome the introduction of the Bill.

Mr Jim Shannon: I am a member of the Committee of the Centre, so I have a particular interest in the issue, and I have contributed to the work along with other members of the Committee. The evidence that children need a commissioner for their protection is not a requirement — it is a necessity. Someone needs to be officially on the side of children to give them the protection and the voice they need. The Bill seems to deliver that: it addresses some of the most important issues that parents fear, especially that someone unsuitable, with a past history of abusing children physically or sexually, would gain employment in schools, churches and youth organisations. The safeguards suggested in the Bill go some way to ensuring that that never happens.
However, as with everything, the safeguards must work. It instils fear into the heart of every parent, after the catalogue of priests, church officials, youth workers and even activists for child protection who have been discovered abusing children and carrying out their deviant agenda while working with children.
The Bill must ensure that those who wish to work with children are vetted. We must go further to ensure worldwide protection for children so that jurisdictions and departmental boundaries cannot be used as excuses to fail our children. In the case of Victoria Climbié that aspect proved fatal as doctors, social workers and police all felt that it was someone else’s responsibility to act on the evidence of abuse. Little Victoria died because of petty matters of jurisdiction. It is also a convenient way to evade prosecution. People protecting children must get their act together and decide definitively that there are no boundaries when it comes to protecting children; they must help one another.
It is too convenient that some priests and church officials can hightail it to a diocese in America when parents in Northern Ireland guess that something is amiss. Those men — if we can call them men — are protected by the Church and are given carte blanche to re-offend elsewhere, and that is despicable. The Bill must address that issue as strongly as possible. I welcome the new whistle-blowing procedures as a way forward in addressing that.
It is vital that those working with children are vetted and have references that will be held on a central register. The Pre-Employment Consultancy Service register must be on a statutory base, and it should have a list of people prohibited from working with children so that child-centred businesses can assure parents that their children are safe. Even those who run voluntary childcare services must be legally obliged to check their workers and register them. That will ensure that no matter where our children go we will know that they are with registered workers who are not convicted abusers.
It would be advantageous if convicted child abusers knew that they would be breaking the law when they applied for a job working with children and that they could be punished severely by the courts. The protection of our children must be the highest priority no matter where they are or what they are doing.
The rights of the unborn child should be addressed in the Bill, and so far they have not. My Colleague, Iris Robinson, spoke about that, as did Joe Hendron. The preamble of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child quotes the Declaration of the Rights of the Child defining child protection as:
"special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".
That is what we should be aiming at. If the United Nations has safeguarded the rights of children before birth, the Northern Ireland Assembly should do likewise. To date, the rights of unborn children have not been safeguarded in Northern Ireland, as unborn twins could not be officially counted among the roll of those murdered by an IRA bomb in Omagh. Whoever causes the death of an unborn child cannot be prosecuted for murder, yet the crime is as real as the murder of you or me. The parents will mourn just as long, and possibly harder, for the child that they did not get to know or see grow up. That is just one tangible reason for protecting the rights of the unborn.
Protecting the child before birth would ensure that unborn children have a voice in medical issues. The commissioner could ensure the best medical care for children, even if they are unborn. It would mean that unborn children are protected from toxic substances that their mothers may work with, and employers would have to preserve the health and the job of the mother in the interests of the child.
As each child is unique and special, each child holds the same fundamental value, and it is priceless beyond our wildest imagination. We must protect children against all dangers, whether medical, terrorist or sexual.
Greater protection from all dangers needs to be legislated for and improved so that bureaucracy and inactivity cannot fail children any more. Every child needs to be protected, even those to whom we cannot speak as yet.
We are the adults. We can make a difference. Let us start by ensuring that the legislation is perfect and without loopholes that those with a subversive attitude could use to their advantage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Edwin Poots: I have listened with interest to the speeches and comments that have been made. I welcome the Bill. The Committee of the Centre will scrutinise it closely. The Committee may make amendments to the Bill once it has heard others’ opinions, and I guarantee that there will be full consultation. I assure those Members who have raised concerns that the Committee will take their views on board and will seek to incorporate them into the Bill through amendments.
I support the concept of a champion for children. However, I suggest that in most cases children’s champions are their mums and dads. I would like to think that that is the case in my own home. I believe that it is the case in most homes around the Province. Unfortunately, however, some children’s mums and dads are not their champions. Often, children are brought up by either their mum or their dad, with the other parent absent. In those cases, only one parent can be their champion.
Often, one or both parents are involved in activities that are not conducive to a stable family environment. Perhaps there are drink or drug problems in the home, or a parent has had to go jail because he or she has become involved in crime. Those are cases in which children’s parents do not act as champions.
There are also cases in which a child’s parents become separated, and a stepfather or stepmother comes on the scene who uses the vulnerability of the single parent to engage in paedophile activity. Once again, the child does not have a champion in the home.
I believe that in the vast majority of cases the champions of children will be their parents. However, a children’s commissioner is needed for those children who do not have a parent to be their champion, or whose parents have let them down. That is where the role and remit of the children’s commissioner must be concentrated. It must not be focused on prying into homes in which there is a good, stable family relationship where the child is loved and well cared for. The role of the commissioner must be to protect those children who are vulnerable and in need of protection.
Adults often think that they know about children’s issues, whereas children and young people have a completely different concept of what those issues are. When the Norwegian Commissioner was in Northern Ireland, one of the key issues for children was that of school uniforms. I am not referring to what Members might think of as school uniforms, but to Nike shoes, Nokia phones and Reebok T-shirts. That was an issue for children whose schools had done away with school uniforms, and whose backgrounds were such that they could not afford to wear the labelled T-shirts, trainers, jeans that the other children were wearing. Perhaps adults would not have identified that as an issue. However, young people did.
The Commissioner said that Norwegian politicians thought that it would be a good idea to reduce the age of consent. He asked young people what their views were. Those young people, particularly young girls, were opposed to it and the legislation was stopped. That was further evidence of adults thinking that they knew the issues affecting children and young people. Let us listen to what children and young people want — perhaps some things that adults impose upon them are not what they want.
Several Members spoke on many issues, including the rights of parents and the extension of the legislation to cover unborn children. At least five Members talked about the definition of "child" and how it needed to be extended. I assure those Members that the Committee of the Centre will fully consider and examine the possibility of having the legislation amended, which will require the co-operation of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
In a somewhat confused speech, Jane Morrice talked of the commissioner lacking powers. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the same person to both investigate and decide the outcome of a case, which was a point that Ms Morrice made. She then expressed concern that non-governmental organisations might be fined if they did not meet the commissioner’s requirements. On the one hand she was seeking more powers for the commissioner, but on the other hand was concerned that the commissioner’s powers might damage some organisations.
Ms Morrice said that the legislation had only been introduced because of the pressure of the private Member’s Bill tabled by the Women’s Coalition. Without delving too much into that somewhat facile point, it should be made clear for the record that the current Bill was proceeding before that private Member’s Bill was brought forward. Mrs Eileen Bell and I had previously tabled a motion in the House to appoint a children’s commissioner, which the Executive had taken into account and, when the motion was debated, indicated their intention to initiate a Bill. The Women’s Coalition’s private Member’s Bill came along some time after that.
It is unfair to say that the Executive and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are enacting the legislation on the basis of that private Member’s Bill. However, we look forward to addressing all those issues and hope that the Bill will go part of the way to reducing the widespread problems and bad experiences that many children and young people face.
Although we cannot eradicate all the problems, we can do everything possible to ensure that the problems that children and young people face are as small as we can make them. Whether that is done through legislation or through a children’s commissioner, we want to give them as much protection as possible.

Mr James Leslie: I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions. I listened carefully to them all. I also thank many Members from all sides of the House for their support for the proposals in the Bill. As my Colleague, Denis Haughey, said at the start of the debate, the Bill offers a marvellous opportunity to establish a commissioner’s office that would be a world leader in protecting the rights and best interests of children.
That is only the beginning. Appointing a commissioner does not absolve Government and society of their responsibilities towards children and young people. The next goal must be to promote a culture of respect for children’s rights that permeates every aspect of society and a system of governance in which consideration of the rights, interests and views of children and young people is second nature, not second choice. That requires more than appointing a commissioner. It will require us to respect the commissioner’s office and respond with diligence and imagination to the commissioner’s recommendations.
We have learnt a great deal in the process of developing our proposals. We have learnt the value of taking the necessary time to have a comprehensive and inclusive consultation process. Some have argued recently that there is too much consultation. We may need to change the way in which consultations are conducted. The emphasis could possibly be shifted away from written documents towards active dialogue with key shareholders. However, under no circumstances must we lose the immense value that those consultations have. We have sought to do that with this Bill, and our proposals are much the better for it.
We have also seen the value of an exclusive partnership approach. Once again, like my colleague Denis Haughey, I pay tribute to the work of the non-governmental organisations forum. The forum complemented the work of the various Departments, providing a synergy that greatly benefited the process. In particular, the expertise of forum members allowed us to involve children and young people of all ages in the development of proposals and in the subsequent consultation in a way that otherwise would not have been possible. Lessons on the value of close co-operation with social partners can be applied more widely across Government.
We appreciate greatly the Committee of the Centre’s commitment to the initiative, and we look forward to working closely with the Committee during the consideration of the Bill. Most of all, we have seen the value and potential of the Executive and the Assembly. We set ourselves the ambitious target of leading the way on children’s rights, and we now have the means to achieve that target. The Bill is clear evidence that we have a governmental system that delivers on key local issues, and that we have the political capacity and maturity to make the system work effectively.
I shall respond to as many as possible of the specific points made during the debate, and any points to which I am unable to respond will receive a written answer. I shall start at the end and thank MrPoots for his thoughtful and measured contribution, in the course of which he answered several of the points that were raised in the debate. I am grateful to him for that. In particular, DrBirnie, at the start of the debate, raised the issue of whether there might be a risk of the commissioner’s activities conflicting with the rights of the children. MrPoots focused on what the commissioner’s emphasis should be, and an underlying point to remember when seeking a commissioner is that the person appointed must understand clearly that exceedingly important balance.
I assure the Assembly that our proposal aims to complement and not to oppose the rule of parents in protecting the rights and best interests of their children. I emphasise that it is not a zero-sum gain issue: recognising and upholding the rights of children does not detract from the rights of parents. There are two specific safeguards. First, as DrBirnie noted, in deciding whether and how to exercise functions, the Bill specifically requires the commissioner to have due regard to the importance of the role of parents in the upbringing and development of children. Secondly, the commissioner is obliged to have regard to the relevant rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The role of parents is central to the Convention, as evidenced in article5, which states that
"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents".
I hope, therefore, that Members will agree that the proposed role and remit are not in any way inimical to the rights and responsibilities of parents or to the contribution made by family life.
Several Members raised issues that relate to the rights of the unborn child. Those Members, in particular DrBirnie and, earlier in the debate, MrsRobinson, made points about providing information to expectant mothers. At this stage, we do not propose to extend formally the commissioner’s remit to include the unborn child. Legislation exists on the matter and we do not intend to change that. It would have been inappropriate to legislate on that matter without full and careful consideration of the complex and sensitive issues involved. Because the issues are complex and sensitive, the amount of time taken might have held up the appointment process to an extent that would not have been sensible. The issues involved turn on both civil and criminal law.
Not only would it cut across several Departments, it would include reserved matters. European jurisprudence does not define the extent to which article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which addresses the right to life, applies to unborn children. The European Court of Human Rights gave member states a wide margin of discretion on that matter in order to reflect the wide variation in the laws of member states. However, clause 3(2) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill makes provision to review the adequacy and effectiveness of the law relating to the rights of children. The commissioner could decide to consider that matter and to make recommendations.
I agree with Iris Robinson’s points about information and research on factors that affect the health of unborn children. The commissioner may seek a role in those important matters, but the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is primarily responsible and exceedingly active in that area. That is not to say, however, that we should not seek further activity.
Dr Birnie asked about the accountability of the commissioner. Annual reports will be published, so the commissioner’s activities will be scrutinised in the Assembly, especially by the Committee of the Centre.
Dr Birnie referred to a parent’s forum. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister recognises the importance of ascertaining the views of parents, and the commissioner will decide how parent’s views should be elicited. The Parents Advice Centre and Homestart, which are non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that work with parents, are members of the NGO forum and have ensured that, in drafting the Bill, we were cognisant of parents’ views.
Ms Lewsley asked whether the commissioner would work with his or her counterparts in other jurisdictions. In schedule 1, the Bill empowers the commissioner to co-operate with
"other bodies exercising functions relating to children and young persons (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)".
We thought that it was important that that power be included explicitly in the Bill.
Ms Lewsley also asked what implications the work of the children’s commissioner would have for the children’s strategy. We are committed to developing a comprehensive children’s strategy and, as with the proposals for the children’s commissioner, the consultation process will begin with the involvement of key stakeholders and other interested parties to develop the proposals for more formal consultation in spring 2003. Our focus hitherto was on bringing the Bill to the House. Having achieved that, we can move with more expedition to the children’s strategy.
We intend to involve children and young people in the appointment process. We are establishing a young people’s advisory forum, which will self-select 12 to 14 of its number to assist with our work. Those selected will receive special support and training to enable them to participate in the appointment process. They will help to draw up the job specification and the personal specification and will participate in the interview process. Young people were involved in the appointment process in Wales, and we will consult with Welsh officials to determine what useful lessons we can learn from that and then tailor the process to our circumstances.
Several Members referred to the time that it has taken to finalise the Bill and to the negotiations between Departments and with the Northern Ireland Office. We were attempting to legislate for a commissioner with a broad range of functions, covering a wide canvas, and, therefore, there were many interested parties.
The commissioner’s comprehensive set of functions and powers covers our aims. The Bill gives the commissioner a broad remit, including juvenile justice, a reserved matter that could not be included in the Bill without the Secretary of State’s consent. As a result, long and detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on the scope of the Bill’s provisions and the necessary safeguards were required. I am pleased that those discussions culminated in an agreed position without watering down the proposals.
In response to Mr McElduff’s question, the timing of the commissioner’s appointment will depend on the Bill’s progress through the Assembly Stages, but we hope to fill the post by early next year. Preparatory work on the appointment procedure will begin very soon.
I agree with Mr Neeson that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is important. That is why the Bill specifically requires the commissioner to have regard to it.
With regard to consulting young people and the creation of a forum, clause 3 imposes a duty on the commissioner to seek the views of children and young people on the exercise of his or her functions. The commissioner will decide the precise mechanism for doing that.
Ms Morrice asked about the use of the terms "welfare" and "rights and best interests". The inclusion in the Bill of "best interests" reflects the terminology of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the term "welfare" must be used where the Bill refers to existing bodies of law that use that term. That is particularly applicable to clauses 10 and 11, because the term "welfare" is commonly used in legislation on related matters.
Ms Morrice also questioned why the children’s commissioner and the children’s strategy were the responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister even though the issue cuts across other Departments’ responsibilities. She answered her own question: it is precisely because the issues cut across several Departments’ activities that it is appropriate that the centre Department should be responsible for them. The Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister will lead the Executive in setting the strategic direction and vision. However, that does not mean that other Departments are not involved — they clearly are, and we will work with them.
With regard to the commissioner’s powers, he or she will have the necessary tools for the job. The commissioner is not there to replace the police or the social services authorities and so does not need those agencies’ powers. He or she will have the power to take legal proceedings, but the primary purpose will be to change how public authorities interact with children. Where possible, that will be best done through collaboration and the dissemination of good practice. The commissioner will also have significant powers to investigate authorities and to recommend changes in policy, practice or law.
With regard to the concern about the commissioner and parents, I emphasise that the focus is on aspects of children’s lives in which parents play no part, and that is for sound reasons. It will be difficult for authorities to ignore any recommendations that the commissioner may make. Departments and the Assembly can deal with the matter if public authorities respond inadequately.
The safeguards in the Bill will not hamper formal investigations. The test to be met as a condition to exercising the stronger powers contained in the Bill will be whether there are reasonable grounds for carrying out an investigation. I am sure that Ms Morrice would not object to that as a criterion, because it is common in legislation.
I echo Mr Poots’s surprise that Ms Morrice did not tell us that, in view of the introduction of this Bill, the Women’s Coalition would be withdrawing its Bill. I ask MsMorrice and her Colleague, Ms McWilliams, to reflect on a few matters, such as how much consultation went into the wording of their Bill, what their Bill says about the appointment and accountability arrangements of the commissioner and what special functions and powers are included? Given the cross-departmental interest, the Northern Ireland Office interest and the issue of reserved powers, is Ms Morrice confident that her Bill will achieve the degree of agreement that we have achieved with those bodies in our Bill? I trust that the Bill being read today will receive widespread support and that the Women’s Coalition will, on reflection, withdraw its Bill.
I welcome the comments of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, MrGibson. In the Bill, we reflected the proposals that the Committee of the Centre produced as a result of its consultation, and we are grateful to the Committee for all the information it provided. The differences are slight and may be matters of degree or emphasis rather than fundamental policy.
The Bill makes it clear that the commissioner will be accountable to the Assembly through the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and to the Comptroller and Auditor General by means of annual reports.
Mr Shannon raised the need to ensure that child abusers could not gain access to children through employment. I agree with Mr Shannon on this key issue. However, that matter is not addressed in this Bill; it is addressed in the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill, which was introduced by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
That deals with matters raised by Members; if I have left any out, I will ensure that Members receive a written reply.
I will finish with the words of one of the many children and young people who responded to the consultation paper. One young man put it very simply, as young people often do:
"This commissioner had better be good or this is all a waste of time".
We can assure that young man that the commissioner will be good, and, judging by the provisions for commissioners elsewhere, ours will be the best children’s commissioner Bill on the statute books.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill (NIA Bill 20/01) be agreed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee of the Centre.

Education and Libraries Bill: Second Stage

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the chair)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Education and Libraries Bill (NIA 21/01) be agreed.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is the first Bill to be brought before the Assembly on matters relating to schools and the first piece of primary legislation on this matter since the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
The Bill is set out in four parts and contains three schedules with consequential and supplementary amendments and repeals. The most important issue in it is the allocation of funds for the local management of schools (LMS). I will take the opportunity to include provisions on other matters.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, the main purpose of the Bill is dealt with in part 1, which contains enabling provisions to allow the Department to introduce a single common funding formula for the calculation of schools’ budgets for all schools funded under local management of schools arrangements.
Local management of schools was introduced here in April 1991. There are seven different LMS formulae in operation. Five of those are operated by the education and library boards — one by each of the boards. Those formulae are applied to all controlled and maintained schools in each board area. The remaining two formulae are operated by the Department of Education. One is for the voluntary grammar schools, and the other is for grant-maintained integrated schools. Although the formulae have many common features, there are differences in the factors used and in the values attached to them. There are also significant variations in the relative size of the budgets that they distribute. As a result, schools that are similar in size can receive quite different levels of resources, purely because their LMS budgets are calculated under different formulae.
I have stated on several occasions, and I am sure that Members agree, that it is indefensible, inequitable and nonsensical to have seven different LMS formulae for the allocation of resources to schools. I am committed to the introduction of a single common funding formula to ensure that schools with similar characteristics receive similar levels of funding, regardless of the area or sector in which they are located.
The principle of a common funding formula has already been agreed by the Executive and is an objective of the Programme for Government. It received widespread endorsement in the major consultation exercise that I undertook last year and is supported by the Committee for Education. Although the make-up of the formula has yet to be agreed, there is general agreement that there should be a common formula.
Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill will enable the Department to introduce a common funding scheme to prescribe the formula to be used, how each factor is to operate and the values or tariffs to be applied to each. The Bill will also provide the Department with the power to require education and library boards to adopt a common funding scheme. That scheme will be made up of two elements: the formula itself; and the arrangements for access to resources, held centrally by each education and library board for controlled and maintained schools and by the Department for voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools. This two-tier funding arrangement is a continuation of current practice, but a single formula will be used instead of the seven currently in use.
My proposals for the formula were the subject of a detailed, public consultation exercise that lasted for almost six months in 2001. In addition to more than 600 responses to the consultations, I received a very helpful report from the Committee for Education. Having regard to that report and the comments that I received during the consultations, I have written to the Committee setting out my proposals for the formula. I look forward to further discussions with the Committee on the matter.
The resources held centrally provide each funding authority with a budget from which it allocates additional resources to schools for certain purposes, such as assisting with substitution costs when a teacher is absent for a specified time or helping with the costs of providing additional support to a pupil with a statement of special educational needs. Significant progress has been made over the past few years towards harmonising the arrangements for the distribution of these funds, and there are unlikely to be any substantial changes in this area.
Clause 1 of the Bill also sets out arrangements for consultation on the scheme. I expect that, as is the case with the existing LMS schemes, the common funding scheme will need to be revised periodically, not only in the light of experience of its operation, but to take account of schools’ changing needs. Therefore, it is important that all those affected by the funding scheme can put forward their views on the need for revision and the implications of that. The arrangements proposed in the Bill will provide for this ongoing consultation.
The Bill retains the provision set out in the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 whereby responsibility for funding voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools will transfer to the education and library boards. This will be accomplished by means of an appointed day procedure, which I do not intend to initiate until the outcome of the review of public administration is known. The main reason for this transfer is that there is little logic in having a different funding source for less than 10% of schools. The funding of these schools, alongside their controlled and maintained counterparts, will simplify the operation and ensure greater transparency.
The common funding scheme provides safeguards for funding voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools. Members will welcome these provisions, as they will remove the inequalities in the current system of funding our schools. I stress that nothing in the arrangements for the common funding formula will prejudice or pre-empt any decision about the most appropriate structures for post-primary education.
Moving to the rest of the Bill, I am taking this opportunity to include a range of other provisions on education matters. Many are amendments to existing legislation, and the need for the majority of these has been identified over time. None is of sufficient significance to justify primary legislation in its own right. I do not propose to comment on each of the provisions, but I will outline some of the issues addressed. Of course, I will be happy to respond to Members’ questions on the other clauses at the end.
Part II of the Bill contains provisions relating to how the five education and library boards will receive and account for resources allocated to them by their funding Departments. I should explain that although the bulk of the resources received by the boards comes from my Department, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department for Employment and Learning pay other amounts for certain services provided by the boards. For example, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure funds the public library service.
For the most part, these new provisions are technical changes required as a result of Government financial accounting’s moving from cash to an accrual basis. However, I want to draw Members’ attention to those provisions that will formally introduce best value in the five education and library boards.
When the Labour Party came to power in 1997, it gave a commitment to replace compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) with a new duty of best value in the delivery of public services. At that time, my Department introduced subordinate legislation to suspend the operation of CCT provisions for certain specified education and library board services until 31 March 2003. New arrangements need to be put in place before this period of suspension of CCT comes to an end.
I am proposing in this Bill to introduce a best value regime in respect of services provided by the education and library boards and to revoke fully the CCT provisions of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. These actions are provided for in clauses 11 and 14 of the Bill respectively. The five education and library boards operate best value principles on a voluntary basis, but this part of the Bill provides a statutory basis for best value. The boards will be required to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the way in which they carry out their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
My Department has no wish to increase the burden on the boards by prescribing how they should carry out their duty in this regard. It is for the boards to decide for themselves. However, in deciding how to carry out their duty, it is important that they consult those who use, are likely to use or, indeed, have an interest in the services provided by them. The Bill provides for such consultation.
Article 20 of the 1993 Order specifies a list of non-commercial matters that should not be taken into consideration by an education and library board when awarding contracts for the supply of goods, materials or services. Such non-commercial matters include the terms and conditions of employment of a potential contractor’s workforce and the country or territory of origin of supplies to be used in meeting the contract.
Clause 12 of the Bill provides my Department with powers to make subordinate legislation, subject to a draft’s being approved by the Assembly, amending this list in the interest of promoting other key policy issues. That will allow a balance to be struck between avoiding discriminatory practice in awarding contracts and ensuring that all relevant matters are taken into consideration. That replicates the approach adopted in the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the equivalent legislation in Britain.
To ensure that boards can deliver their duty of best value, provision is included in clause 13 of the Bill to enable my Department to make an Order to remove any obstacles preventing or obstructing boards from complying with their statutory duty in this regard or, if necessary, to give appropriate powers to boards to ensure that they can comply with their duty of best value. However, before any proposed Order is laid formally before the Assembly for approval, my Department will advance an explanatory document containing details of the draft proposals together with details of consultations that have taken place on them.
In determining how we would implement best value in the boards, I have had regard to the provision of the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. Therefore, the approach that I have taken is similar to the way in which best value will apply in local government here. My Colleagues, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Minister for Employment and Learning, support this proposal for the services provided by the boards for which they have responsibility.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, in part III of the Bill I plan to introduce several provisions that are concerned directly with children’s protection and welfare. In clause 15 I propose that the duty of care, which is already placed on a school’s board of governors in respect of pupils who are boarders under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, be extended to include all pupils who attend the school.
In addition, my Department has power to direct a board of governors to comply with a duty set out in education legislation. I seek a further power extending this to include the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 duty of care in respect of pupils in boarding departments. This will mean that should an inspection of facilities in a boarding department identify weaknesses that place pupils at risk, action can be taken by my Department to direct improvement.
Perhaps the most important provision in this part of the Bill is clause 16. It will introduce a requirement for all grant-aided schools to have a written child protection policy and to make a copy of the policy available to parents. While I am assured that, as a matter of good practice, all schools have a child protection policy, there is a widely held concern among those engaged actively in promoting the safety of children that reliance on good practice in such an important matter is insufficient. Other Members and I share that concern.
Consequently, clause 16 will impose a duty on boards of governors to ensure that there is a child protection policy at their school and that it is implemented. Furthermore, it will require that, in preparing the policy, schools must take account of guidance provided by my Department, the boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). This will ensure that school policies are kept up to date and are based on the most recent advice available.
Clause 17 contains another significant provision. It will require schools to address the problem of bullying through their discipline policies. I have told the Assembly on several occasions of my intention to make this a requirement for schools. Members should note that for the first time here the legislation includes a requirement for schools to consult with pupils when developing their anti-bullying policies. This development is entirely consistent with our broader agenda to create an inclusive society. It will allow young people to participate actively in forming strategies to tackle a problem that directly concerns them. I am confident that the involvement of all pupils — those who are bullied, those who bully and those on the sidelines not knowing what to do — in the development of an anti-bullying culture will improve considerably the chances of tackling effectively this most pernicious and persistent problem.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, this part of the Bill also contains several other provisions, some of which I will now outline. First, clause 20 contains a new power to allocate places in special schools to children from the South of Ireland or other jurisdictions for an appropriate charge. This will maximise the use of our special schools and allow the needs of more children to be met. The provision will also make it clear that places can only be offered to non-resident children if they are not needed for local children.
Secondly, in clause 21, I propose to introduce a new power to make regulations to enable the Department, in exceptional circumstances, to remove from office all voting and co-opted members of a school’s boards of governors. However, it would not apply to the school principal, who is a non-voting member. It is expected that the use of this power will arise only rarely. It is designed to deal with circumstances in which a school is failing to provide an adequate education for the children, and the Department is of the view that the entire board of governors, either through its actions or inactions, is contributing in whole or in part to that failure.
Before a decision is taken to remove a board of governors, consultation will take place with the appropriate body, such as the local education and library board or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Arrangements will also be made to advise and consult with the board of governors concerned about the decision and for any representations to be considered. Appointments to the board of governors are made by a range of bodies, and the new powers will allow those bodies that have authority to nominate individual representatives to a board of governors and to remove and replace their individual representatives.
Clause 22 will make it a statutory requirement that the person or body representing the school should consult with the board of governors, teaching staff and parents before the publication of a development proposal. Such a proposal is a statutory process, which is required when a school authority wishes to make a significant change to the education provision in a specific area — for example, a school closure or the amalgamation of two or more schools. The clause will ensure that all relevant interests are consulted fully about such changes.
In support of the initiative to ease the bureaucratic burden on schools, a provision will be introduced in clause 25 to allow the Department to consult a representative sample of schools, rather than all affected schools, before making regulations about provision of information on pupils and school performance targets. That will not affect the right of any school to express a view on any consultation, and all schools will continue to be notified that consultation exercises have been initiated.
Four of the provisions in part IV of the Bill, clauses 27 to 30, will reduce or remove entirely the need for education and library boards to seek the approval of my Department on certain administrative matters. Clause 32 will allow education and library boards to make arrangements for education to be provided by an institution of further education for certain pupils, such as expelled or disaffected pupils who are over 14 years of age and not on a school register. There is already provision in existing legislation for the education of pupils at Key Stage 4 on link or work-related courses that are provided at further education colleges rather than at schools. This proposed change would extend that provision for an estimated 200 pupils each year.
Clause 34 will amend legislation introduced in 1987 to make corporal punishment unlawful in all schools, including the small number of independent schools here, and also in settings where education is provided other than at a mainstream school. That will bring the legislative provisions here into line with those in Britain, following a decision of the European Court.
The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a common formula for calculating school budgets. That will remove the inequities in the present system, and the Assembly will welcome that commitment. The detail of the common funding scheme, including the formula, has yet to be finalised. I hope to work closely with the Committee for Education over the next few months on that important task.
The remainder of the Bill deals with a range of issues, some of a technical and minor nature and others of importance for young people. I have not covered every provision, but I have focused on those that are the most important. I shall be happy to respond to any points raised by Members.

Mr Danny Kennedy: In broad terms I welcome the Education and Libraries Bill. My Committee members are looking forward to the Committee Stage. The Committee appreciated the fact that officials from the Department of Education attended a recent meeting and briefed members on the purpose and detail of the Bill.
I intend to keep my comments brief, because it is important that the Committee for Education considers the Bill in great detail. The Committee expects to be given the opportunity for full and appropriate consideration of the Bill, and would be concerned were there to be a request for accelerated passage.
As the Minister has said, the Bill’s primary purpose is to provide enabling power to introduce a single common formula to calculate school budgets for all schools under local management of schools (LMS) arrangements. However, the Minister has confirmed that the Bill will not prescribe that formula.
The Committee expects that any new LMS arrangements would have to have widespread support and carry the Committee’s endorsement. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that that consensus is worked for and achieved, and that he will not attempt to force his own proposals into the new arrangements. As in most matters, the devil is in the detail, and the Committee will expect to see the details and to be in a position to approve them.
The Committee for Education strongly believes that the current situation, in which schools in different sectors but with identical characteristics receive varying budgets, is neither satisfactory nor equitable. Therefore, we welcome the introduction of a common funding formula for grant-aided schools. The Committee spent a great deal of time examining in detail the proposals for a common formula for grant-aided schools. It produced a comprehensive report that included several key recommendations. We anticipate that those recommendations will form the basis of the new funding arrangements.
It is clear that the outcome of any changes will impact on the amount of money that every school in Northern Ireland will have to spend on providing the best education for our children. Therefore, we shall wish to give detailed consideration to the relevant clauses.
Part II of the Bill deals with the financing of boards and the duty of best value. That is an opportunity to place the present voluntary application of best value to education and library board services on a statutory footing, which is to be welcomed.
Part III of the Bill includes provisions for the Department to remove a school’s board of governors. It is the Department’s intention to invoke that power where it is convinced that it would be in the best interest of the school. However, that would be a court of last resort and should be viewed as such. The Committee looks forward to scrutinising that area in detail.
Those provisions of the Bill that require schools to have a written child protection policy and an anti-bullying policy reassure the Committee. Those policies will serve to strengthen the rights of children. All Members will agree that the welfare of our children is of the utmost importance.
Additional clauses that involve the abolition of corporal punishment will undoubtedly arouse interest and much debate, not least in the independent school sector.
I draw the Minister’s attention — and he referred to this in his opening remarks — to the need for a cohesive approach, not only with regard to the local management of schools common funding formula, but also the proposals and possible implementation which will arise from the outcome of the Burns Report and the curriculum review. It would be nonsensical to move forward on any of those proposals in isolation of the other important issues. They are all interlinked, and good common sense determines that to make progress we must be aware of the structural, financial and curriculum implications.
The Committee for Education looks forward to considering the Bill and examining the clauses in detail. It is committed to conducting a detailed scrutiny, and it intends to consult widely and take evidence from interested parties. The Committee will want to examine the detail of the proposals — not just the generalities — and it will want to be satisfied that there is a strong consensus in the Committee, the Executive and the Assembly for new proposals when they are brought forward.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Although many of the provisions in the Bill are necessary tidying-up measures which reflect changes that have occurred in the education system, some of the issues are insidious and Members should be concerned about them. The Bill should not be allowed to go through in its totality or without significant amendment.
Clauses 1 to 7 deal with the funding of grant-aided schools and the common funding scheme. The Minister’s proposals have already caused considerable opposition, some from right across the board. There has been consultation, but the Bill makes it clear that it will be up to the Minister to determine what goes into the common funding formula.
Clause 1 goes through the consultation process. It is important to remember — as the Chairperson said — that the contents of the Bill affect the fairness of moneys available for the education of children in all school sectors in Northern Ireland. Clause 1(8) proposes that following all the consultation:
"The Department shall then—
(a) adopt the scheme (with or without modifications); and
(b) publish the scheme."
Clause 11 then states that it will be the duty of each board to implement the scheme.
Given that there is already a degree of suspicion about the scheme as presented by the Minister and since on many occasions he has ignored the outcome of consultation and turned his back on the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education, I am not happy about enabling legislation that allows him to implement, without first having presented it to the Assembly, a scheme which Members have not yet seen and which they will not be required to approve, according to the Bill.
That is a very dangerous way to proceed. I suspect that the enabling legislation was proposed because the Minister knows that parts of his scheme will be unacceptable to elements in the Assembly. A well-aired concern is the favourable treatment that he proposed and that was recommended by a small minority to whom, I suspect, the Minister will pay great heed.
The Minister proposes to provide additional funding for Irish-medium education. If he adopted some of the recommendations of the Irish-medium sector, youngsters at those schools could receive nearly £1,000 more funding than pupils at controlled or maintained schools. That is one reason why the controlled and the maintained sectors opposed the scheme.
I could give other examples, but we are not discussing the common funding formula. I wanted to illustrate why Members should not empower the Minister to implement a scheme for which there is a consultation process that the Bill enables him to ignore. I have grave concerns about the current Minister of Education, but I would not want to grant that power to any Minister. Major decisions such as funding are crucial to schools’ ability to carry out their functions. Members should not give a carte blanche to the Minister as regards school funding.
I hope that clauses 1 to 7 do not remain in the Bill. I have no difficulty with legislation to enable the Minister to introduce a common funding formula scheme that has been seen and agreed. However, I will not take a leap of faith by believing that the Minister will do the decent thing. The scheme must be seen and agreed. It will be important that the Committee for Education address clauses1 to 7 in great detail.
I do not imagine that anyone opposes the imposition of a duty on boards of governors to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils. However, Members must be clear about the implications. Given the onerous duties and burdens on boards of governors, it is often difficult to get people to serve on those bodies. They now have financial responsibility for schools, and that burden increases daily, especially given schools’ funding deficit. Now we are to impose on boards of governors the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils registered at the school at all times, either when they are on the premises or in the lawful control or charge of school staff. What does that mean? What are its implications?
If youngsters go on a school trip and something happens, such as the tragic accident in France last week, which may be due to negligence of an individual, will the board of governors be legally responsible? If school procedures break down and a child is injured, will the boards of governors be held responsible? If so, it will be even more difficult to serve on a board of governors. The Committee ought to be teasing out the implications of that.
Clause 16 (2) goes even further. Part of the child protection measures is that abuse
"includes sexual abuse and abuse causing physical or mental harm to a child."
The board of governors is responsible for that, but how far does it go? It is a catch-all. If a youngster is under pressure at exam time, is that a form of mental abuse? Is the board of governors responsible for schools pushing youngsters too hard or pushing them over the brink? I do not know. However, those questions must be answered because a board of governors consists of people who give up their time for no remuneration. They ought to know that they are not placing their livelihoods in jeopardy by legislation that is vaguely worded and is therefore a lawyers’ paradise or which may even be designed to put more responsibility on the boards.
Clause 17, which the Chairperson of the Education Committee mentioned, refers to school discipline measures to prevent bullying. Some may think it ironic that the Minister of Education is concerned about bullying. I will not go down that route, although I could speak for quite a while on it. Our response is to present more paper documents. School policies on bullying will not solve the problem. Schools can write all the fanciful documents they wish, but that does not deal with the problem.
Schools and teachers must have effective sanctions to deal with bullies. Ironically, clause 34 abolishes one of the sanctions that teachers had to deal with classroom bullies. Schools will not be permitted under any circumstances to use corporal punishment. On one hand, it is foolish to say that we will tackle these problems — and teachers complain about that all the time — and on the other hand remove the means for teachers to tackle them. I notice that a few Members of IRA/Sinn Féin are laughing at that. One of the actions strongly advocated by IRA/Sinn Féin for dealing with bullies in the ghettos that it controls is corporal punishment administered with nail-studded baseball bats. Nevertheless, they seem to think it funny that we ask for powers of corporal punishment to be available to teachers.
In Part IV of the Bill, clause 32 deals with the provision of secondary education for pupils by institutions of further education. I understand why some schools might welcome that. However, I also envisage difficulties because of the way in which the system currently operates. Unless there are good reasons for a youngster who is under the age of 16 to be educated somewhere other than at school, he or she cannot be educated in a college of further education, although that can happen when local arrangements have been made. The Bill may simply be designed to regularise that. Many colleges of further education welcomed the fact that they no longer had to take in GCSE students. However, colleges with falling student numbers may welcome back those students.
One thing must be made clear. If a board arranges for secondary education to be provided by an institute of further education for youngsters who are registered at Key Stage4 and who are over the age of 14, the grounds on which that can be done should be specified. There will be all kinds of difficulties for boards and schools, such as when parents who are in despair about their child — or youngsters who are unhappy at school — put undue pressure on the board to move them to a college of further education, regardless of whether that is the most suitable place to educate them. The criteria on which that can be done must be made clear. It should not be open-ended. The Committee will examine that matter.
Parts of the Bill should be welcomed. However, certain sections of the Bill, such as the enabling legislation, should not be passed until Members know exactly what the Department will impose on boards. Until there is clarification from the Department, the Assembly should be wary of some parts of the Bill.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Having listened to Sammy Wilson’s remarks, I am glad that he is not the Minister of Education. He seemed to know what my Colleague and I were laughing at, though he has to admit that he has been a figure of fun in the past — not least in the media.
There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but there is still much work to be done. You would have thought that this was the main debate of the day. The battle lines have been drawn about how agreement is reached on various issues. However, I can see how that will work itself out.
The Minister’s past practice has always been to the benefit and best interest of all the children of Northern Ireland, and not any particular grouping. I welcome the consideration that lies behind the Bill and look forward to the Committee’s discussion of the final details, especially partI, clauses1to7. I welcome the enabling legislation that will allow the Minister to introduce a common funding formula for schools, thus bringing to an end the disparity between similar schools in the board areas and the fact that there were seven different formulae. The issue was debated at length last year. Many schools, especially those in areas of high disadvantage, await the Minister’s final proposals with hope and some trepidation. I hope that the Minister will take advantage of the enabling legislation in order to introduce a fair and equitable funding scheme. Perhaps the fears that were mentioned will not unfold.
Clauses11, 12 and 13 in part II of the Bill are based on the wording of the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002, which was passed by the Assembly earlier this year. Those clauses will allow the Department of Education to take steps to ensure that education and library boards comply with equality legislation in the functions that they exercise and in the contracts that they enter into.
Issues such as fair employment and equality can be taken into account, not just price. I welcome the departure from the purely monetary approach of the past.
I especially commend the Minister and his Department on part III of the Bill, which proposes to strengthen children’s rights. I particularly applaud the proposed requirement for schools to have a written anti-bullying policy that complies with current departmental guidance. It is important that those policies be written down.
The present approach is very haphazard. Schools can decide to have no guidance or policy. Where policies are designed, they often depend on how people feel at the time, or on how individuals feel about dealing with bullying or any difficulties with young children. It is down to individuals, individual schools, boards of governors and whomever else they consult at the time. Guidelines must be written down in order for people to know exactly how to react to those difficulties.
Bullying is an especially complex issue. We want to find a way of resolving it because, as has been said, it has one of the greatest impacts on individuals and schools. Something must be done, because the problem has not been dealt with yet. Some form of approach is required, and written guidance would be no bad thing. Unless such a policy exists in writing and is of a certain standard, it is difficult for pupils and their parents to discuss bullying with a school that parents feel has failed to protect their children adequately.
It is unfortunate that, in those unhappy cases where a child has been left vulnerable, the legislation does not require written guidance. Recent research into mental health and the well-being of young people has listed bullying as a major factor in depression and suicide. Bullying is not only a matter of children’s rights, but a matter of children’s health.
I welcome part IV, which mentions a complete ban on corporal punishment, as proposed in clause 34. I will not comment on it as it has already been mentioned. However, I am opposed completely to Sammy Wilson’s notion of corporal punishment and, indeed, his laughable comments on other issues.
Corporal punishment in schools is recognised widely as an assault on children. It can only be described as a physical assault on children. It is no longer seen as the hallmark of good education, but rather as an admission of a school’s failure to establish good behaviour except through the use of force.
At a time when this society is moving away from the use of force to solve its political problems, it would be a very unwelcome step to go back or continue with corporal punishment for the benefit of education. I will continue to hold that view in this debate and at Committee level. There is no place for corporal punishment, and Members should not support it.

Mrs Joan Carson: The Bill boils down to providing the Department with the power to require education and library boards to adopt the common funding scheme. Clause 1 provides for widespread consultation, yet there does not appear to be any obligation on the Department to take note of any views expressed either by education and library boards or by boards of governors. Clause 13 refers to the power to modify statutory provisions, and subsection (9) of that clause requires the Department to consider any representations made. Can that obligation not be made clear with reference to the consultation in clause 1?
Clause I, subsection (10) gives the Department the authority to adopt and publish a scheme where the Department does not consider that it makes any significant change to the previous scheme.
What consideration has been given to assistance for schools that may be affected adversely by the change of formula? How does the Department of Education propose to agree enrolment figures for the purposes of funding in respect of school intakes in September? At the latter end of the previous financial year, that could be highly speculative.
In part I of the Bill, clause 2(5)(b) states that the common funding formula
"may include provision for taking into account factors affecting the particular needs of any class or description of school."
The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools. Why does the Bill not mention them? Will a common formula apply to all primary, secondary and grammar schools?
The implication in clause 2, subsections (5), (6) and (7) is that the preparatory department of a grammar school is likely to receive nil funding. Why is a preparatory school not permitted funding equal to that of a primary school? There are tiny primary schools and Irish-medium schools, all of which receive funding. In the name of equality I cannot understand why, if some parents choose a preparatory school, why funding should not be equal.
Clause 21 gives the Minister of Education the right, following consultation with
"such bodies and persons as may be prescribed"
to determine certain circumstances regarding the removal of members of boards of governors. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to those bodies as the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). Could that not be made clear in the Bill? In addition, why is this the only instance in which the Minister, and not the Department of Education, has been given the power?
When taking into account the common funding formula, consideration should be given to the exclusion of teachers’ salaries from the local management of schools budget. Teachers’ salary costs should be centrally retained, thus removing a major cause of inequality.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The main purpose of the Bill is dealt with in part I, which contains provisions to enable the Department of Education to introduce a single common funding formula for the calculation of budgets for all schools funded under LMS arrangements.
I repeat that to have seven different formulae is indefensible, inequitable and nonsensical. I am committed, as are almost all of us, to the single common formula. That will effectively ensure that schools with similar characteristics receive similar levels of funding, regardless of the area or sector in which they are located.
We must also remember that the principle of a common funding formula has been agreed by the Executive and is stated in the Programme for Government. It received widespread endorsement in the consultation exercise undertaken last year, and it is supported by the Committee for Education, apart from the individual comments of some Members. Although the make-up of the formula has not yet been agreed, it is agreed generally that there should be a common formula.
I am sure that Members in general will welcome these provisions for the simple reason that they remove the inequalities in our current system of funding for schools. It is important to emphasise that nothing in the arrangements for the common funding formula would prejudice or pre-empt any decision on the most appropriate structures for post-primary education. Danny Kennedy raised that point in the course of his contribution.
The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a common funding formula for calculating schools’ budgets. Here we can address an outstanding issue that many Members agree must be dealt with. The detail of the common funding scheme, including the formula, has yet to be finalised, and I hope to work closely with the Committee for Education in the coming months.
I thank those Members who contributed to such an important debate. Danny Kennedy’s contribution was especially encouraging, as it was generally positive and helpful. I am always happy to discuss the need for change with the Committee. I welcome its views, and, although I may not agree with all of them, it is essential that those views be fed into the decision-making process. Decisions on funding levels impact on schools, and on the pupils and staff. In my response to the Committee’s report, I stated that I am happy to discuss the relevant issues with it.
Sammy Wilson raised concerns about the level of support for the common funding formula. Most of the proposals commanded majority support, with a significant number attracting a high level of support. Not surprisingly, some proposals attracted less support and my officials have reflected further on respondents’ comments. Points that were raised include: the size of the budget; TSN; the treatment of teachers’ salary costs; and the funding of Irish-medium provision. I expect those issues to be subject to further discussions with the Committee for Education as part of the development of the common funding scheme.
Sammy Wilson referred also to the approval of the scheme. The common funding scheme will be published by the Department and made available to Members as a matter of course. However, it is not the intention that the scheme will be subject to the approval of the Assembly, although, of course, the Committee for Education can continue to play an important role in its development and operation. Any Member can initiate a debate on the scheme at any time.
It is also important to point out to Sammy Wilson that existing LMS schemes are not set out in Regulations. The timetable for subordinate legislation would mean that any changes to the common funding scheme would have to be identified up to a year in advance of application, which would restrict the formula’s capacity to react quickly to changing circumstances. Were Regulations a requirement, the common formula could not be implemented for the 2003-04 funding allocations.

Mr Fred Cobain: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Martin McGuinness: No, I want to respond to all Sammy Wilson’s points. He raised the issue of ministerial decision making. I note his concerns but I must take account of the practicalities. Schools must be informed of their budgets in advance of the new financial year. Decisions on the make-up of the scheme and the formula must be made on the basis of the information that is available on trends in schools. That highlights the need to avoid a cumbersome and bureaucratic approval process. I am conscious of the need to work closely with the Committee to achieve as much consensus as possible, and I shall continue to do so.
Sammy Wilson said that policies on bullying will not solve the problem and that effective sanctions are needed. I am abolishing corporal punishment, which has been outlawed in all grant-aided schools since 1987. New provision will extend that law to independent schools and is necessary to comply with a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, so we do not have any discretion. The provision is necessary because bullying exists in our schools and can have a serious educational and emotional impact on the children involved. Many schools have already voluntarily developed an anti-bullying policy. However, I want to strengthen the legislation on school discipline to make it mandatory for every grant-aided school to have a written anti-bullying policy, and, more importantly, to implement it.
Duty of care is also important. The provisions that I am introducing simply make the in loco parentis duty explicit. That duty is existing common law, and the courts rely on it. It has existed since 1995 for boarders. There has been no evidence that that provision has been used mischievously — all children deserve the same safeguards.
The clause dealing with Key Stage 4 pupils who continue on to further education colleges allows education and library boards to make provision at a further education institution for any pupil over 14 who is not on a school register. A pupil will not be able to decide to leave school to go to further education. The clause will allow boards to provide for expelled and disaffected pupils for whom they are obliged to provide education; this they do by means of home tuition or education at places other than schools. Boards will now be able to do that by placing pupils in further education colleges.
Sammy Wilson and Joan Carson referred to removing boards of governors. The legislation allows governors to be removed for particular reasons, such as bankruptcy. The Department of Education also has the power to appoint governors to a board in certain circumstances. I expect this power to be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is designed to deal with situations in which, for example, a school fails to provide adequate education, and the Department holds the view that the entire board of governors, through its actions or inaction, contributes wholly or partly to that failure. It is not possible to prescribe all the circumstances in which that may arise, so it is intended that the Department should be able to invoke the power when it is convinced that that is in a school’s best interests.
Mrs Carson also mentioned grammar schools’ preparatory departments, and she asked whether further reductions in public funding are planned for them. My answer is "Not necessarily", but given the need to maintain firm control of public expenditure, it is simply impossible to give guarantees on any area of expenditure.
Mrs Carson also mentioned teachers’ salaries. During the consultation there was no significant support for removing teachers’ salaries from the local management of schools funding, and it is important to point that out.
Sammy Wilson referred to Irish-medium education. I do not propose to go into detail on that —

Mr Danny Kennedy: The Minister will recall that in the consultation on the local management of schools funding formula on teachers’ salaries, the clear suggestion was made that the actual salaries should be met rather than the average salaries, which is the present situation. Is the Minister prepared to accept that principle in his new arrangements?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It was clear during the consultation, and everybody accepted it, that there was no significant support for removing teachers’ salaries from local management of schools funding. If there are other dimensions to that, there will doubtless be further discussions between officials, the Committee for Education and me.
It is important to point out that Irish-medium schools and units have additional costs. I will be happy to discuss that with the Committee for Education in future.
That is effectively all that I have to say. I welcome Mrs Carson’s, Mr McHugh’s and Mr Kennedy’s positive and constructive comments. I am slightly disappointed that Mr S Wilson got involved in some of his usual grandstanding, but that is only to be expected.
This is an important Bill that deals with important issues and removes inequalities. It is recognised that having seven different formulae does not make sense. The majority of MLAs recognise that reform is needed, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Education and Libraries Bill (NIA Bill 21/01) be agreed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education.

Private Hire Vehicle (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc.) Bill

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I beg to move
That this Assembly endorses the application to Northern Ireland of the amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 contained in the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs, Etc) Bill.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires public hire taxi drivers to carry disabled persons and their guide and other assistant dogs, and to do so at no additional charge to the owner, unless it is appropriate to exempt a driver from the requirement on medical grounds.
A Government-supported private Member’s Bill at Westminster, tabled by Neil Gerrard MP, seeks to extend those provisions so that they apply to private hire taxi drivers and operators. In Northern Ireland, the 1995 Act became a transferred matter on devolution. There are, therefore, two ways in which legislation can be dealt with for Northern Ireland. First, we could amend the 1995 Act by means of a Bill, which would mean that the current Westminster Bill would only apply to Great Britain. On the other hand, we could seek, through this motion, to apply the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendments to the 1995 Act would have to be made through primary legislation in the Assembly and could not be completed until 2003-04 at the earliest. That would leave disabled persons in Northern Ireland disadvantaged in comparison with such people in the rest of the United Kingdom, so I am seeking inclusion in the Westminster Bill, which would mean a shorter timescale for implementation.
The position at Westminster is that the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill has completed its Committee Stage in the House of Commons and is due to receive its Third Reading on 19 July. Today, we have an opportunity to take advantage of the Bill and improve the transport options for disabled people here who depend on guide and other assistant dogs.
The Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB) recently contacted officials in my Department to express its wholehearted support for the motion. It conducted a survey recently that found that one in five visually-impaired people use taxis as least once each week, mainly because such door-to-door transport is more convenient for getting around. The RNIB is aware of instances in Northern Ireland of a disabled person with a guide dog being refused a taxi. The Bill addresses such discrimination. As there are approximately 100 guide dogs and other assistance dogs in Northern Ireland, we should not ignore the matter.
The Committee for the Environment discussed the proposal at a meeting on 6 June. I appreciate its prompt consideration of what we are trying to achieve. The Committee gave an enthusiastic welcome to the proposal in a letter dated 10 June 2002, from the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, Rev Dr William McCrea.
I am pleased to confirm that, subject to Members’ approval today, the Executive endorse this proposal, which will enable the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be applied to private hire taxis. I commend the motion to the House.

Rev William McCrea: I welcome the motion. In March 2001, the Committee considered a consultation document from the Department of the Environment on introducing legislation to place a duty on licensed public taxi drivers to carry guide dogs and other assistant dogs without charge. In welcoming that proposal, the Committee pressed for the provision to be extended to private taxi drivers.
On 30 May 2002, the Minister of the Environment wrote to me to say that it was proposed to extend to Northern Ireland a Westminster Bill on the carriage of guide dogs and other assistant dogs in private hire taxis. The Committee considered the long-overdue initiative on 6 June 2002 and gave it a genuine welcome.
The Committee considered a further letter from the Department of the Environment last Thursday, when Members were updated on the Department’s position. The letter also provided the precise terms of the proposed Northern Ireland amendments to the Westminster Bill.
Some of my Colleagues pressed me on whether a private Member’s Bill was the best way to proceed. The Minister assured us that this was the most appropriate way to ensure that legislation would be passed during this session of the Assembly, not solely because it is a private Member’s Bill, as often they do not see the light of day, but because it is one that has the support of the Government. If this procedure will speed the enactment of the legislation, I give it an enthusiastic welcome.
I do not accept that any disabled person with a guide dog should be refused travel in a public or private taxi. The matter is of great concern to disabled people. In particular, it affects blind people, and I endorse the Royal National Institute of the Blind’s welcome of the urgent enactment of the Bill.
I urge the Minister to recognise that the Committee speaks with one voice in welcoming the initiative. I ask Members to support the motion, and I encourage them to make every effort to ensure that the Bill becomes law soon, so that disabled people here can enjoy the protection to which they are entitled.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the Bill, and I agree with many of the Chairperson’s comments. This Bill is long overdue, and the Committee is delighted to see it. I want to raise some issues with the Minister because, with legislation and its implementation, come responsibilities. The Committee asked officials about the number of disabled people who had complained about being denied access to private hire vehicles. They said that there were very few. I do not know whether there is a lack of communication within the Department, but some "not-so-high" officials agreed that there have been a number of complaints.
Following on from that, what procedures will the Minister put in place to allow people who are disabled, and who have been denied access to a private hire vehicle, to complain? Do they take their complaints to the Department, the taxi firm or their local disability organisation? Also, what type of educational information will the Department issue so that people know the right route to take? Who will be responsible for enforcement if a person is denied access to a taxi — the Department or the taxi firm? Who will then be liable for the penalty — the taxi company or the taxi driver? What penalties will be imposed on taxi drivers if they deny access to people with disabilities?
We also need to know about the health and safety aspect. Black taxis for public hire have a screen between the driver and the passenger in the back. What about the safety of taxi drivers when a guide dog is in a private vehicle? What type of training and help will the RNIB give to ensure that guide dogs are properly trained to be carried in that type of vehicle?
Those are just a few issues that have been raised by constituents and others. I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I thank the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment for their remarks. I was struck particularly by DrMcCrea’s comment that the Committee spoke with one voice. Only those with disabilities can appreciate fully the difficulties they face, so we should with all haste —but not with undue haste — move forward on this matter. DrMcCrea said that some Colleagues pressed him on whether a private Member’s Bill was the best way to proceed with this, and I thank him for accepting my assurance.
The Deputy Chairperson raised some very interesting points about protection of people, person, about education, about screens to protect drivers, about the training of guide dogs and about enforcing penalties. Those matters will probably have to be taken up in the Regulations. Those aspects, even when we are looking for accelerated passage for a Bill, are usually covered by Regulations separate from the Bill and go through full consultation with the Committee and others. I do not know whether the Regulations will encapsulate all the points that the Deputy Chairperson raised, but that is probably where they should reside. We will look into that and ensure that all such issues are taken care of.
The first point that the Deputy Chairperson mentioned was the confusion about the number of disabled people denied access.
All I can say is that the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which is the authority that has the most communication and knows what the situation is, is supportive of what we want to do. One in five people use private taxis because they are the best way to get from door to door, and if this is the case, it is up to us to ensure that nothing inhibits that. Even though there were some criticisms, we want those who are impaired in this way to feel that the law is on their side; they should not be seeking comfort in the hope that a taxi driver might allow them to be passengers as a concession. There should be a law, and they should be comforted by it. I see that the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment endorses what I am saying.
I have covered most of the comments. We look forward to seeing the Regulations, and I hope that we will again speak with one voice. I commend the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly endorses the application to Northern Ireland of the amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 contained in the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs, Etc) Bill.

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill: First Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 25/01] to extend the powers of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to include certain matters concerning the conduct, interests and privileges of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and related matters; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002: Report of Ad Hoc Committee

Mr Gregory Campbell: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the proposal for a Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, established by resolution on 21 May 2002, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
At the outset, I thank the various bodies that came to the Committee to provide evidence. Even though the issue is somewhat complex, I intend to be as concise as possible.
I will begin by providing some background to the proposed Order in Council. On 19 February 1998, the Government announced a review into the provision and administration of legal aid in Northern Ireland. The announcement indicated that officials would undertake a review into arrangements for the administration and provision of legal aid in Northern Ireland, introducing recommendations for change where necessary. Officials would also consider, in the Northern Ireland context, the proposed reforms to legal aid in England and Wales.
As a result of that review, a consultation paper, ‘Public Benefit and the Public Purse’, was published on 14 June 1999. Publication of the consultation paper marked the start of the first substantive public discussion on legal aid for many years. The consultation paper set out the Government’s objectives for, and commitment to, the modernisation of legal aid in Northern Ireland.
The objectives set by the Government in the consultation paper are summarised as follows: ensuring appropriate funding arrangements are in place to secure access to the most appropriate means to resolve legal issues for citizens; targeting resources to those in greatest need; ensuring that legal services are affordable and controllable; securing value for money from quality legal services; and establishing the most effective and efficient administrative structure to deliver legal services.
After consultation, the Government published a White Paper, ‘The Way Ahead’ in September 2000. The Government stated that the approach set out in the White Paper would provide a modern, transparent and accountable administrative structure to deliver quality assured legal services to all the people of Northern Ireland.
The White Paper showed that through the reform programme the Government were determined to take effective control of the public funding allocated for providing legal services and to ensure that the funds available were targeted at meeting the real needs of the most vulnerable.
To assist with its deliberations of the draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 the Committee heard evidence from the Lord Chancellor’s Department of the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens’ Advice Bureaux and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
During the Committee’s deliberations on the proposals for reform of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland, members considered a wide variety of issues. I will provide Members with details of the Committee’s deliberations and recommendations.
The Committee welcomed the opportunity to consider the proposals for reform of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland and recognised that those proposals would be of major significance for many years. However, given the importance of those proposals, the Committee considered that a full, proper and meaningful consultation would be vital, as the proposals would affect the future of legal aid provision.
The Committee expressed concern about the time allocated to consider the draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, although it was within the 60 days allowed under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Due to the wide-ranging and complex areas for consideration, the Committee was of the opinion that there was a need for scrutiny of the draft Order and any subsequent implementation plan.
The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State continue to apprise the Assembly of any amendments to the legislation.
The Committee considered the establishment of a legal services commission. It will be responsible for the administration of the public funding of legal services; making new provision for the public funding of civil legal services; making new provision for the public funding of criminal legal services; providing for the registration of those seeking to provide publicly funded legal services; and making provision for alternative methods of paying for legal services, that is conditional fee arrangements and litigation fund agreements.
I said at the outset that some complexity was involved; I hope that Members can follow.
The Committee agreed with the principle of establishing an impartial legal services commission that would remove the administration of legal aid from the Law Society, a body whose members benefit from the present provision of legal aid.
When scrutinising the legislation, the Committee formed the view that many of the proposed major areas were seen as contingent legislation; they will provide fall-back positions if the proposals do not go according to plan. The Committee had serious reservations about that procedure. The proposal to allow a legal services commission to implement much of the detail without many of the areas being defined clearly in the legislation is a cause for concern.
However, the Committee noted evidence from the Law Society. It stated that
"we do have considerable reservations as to whether another Commission of this type or size is necessary or appropriate for the administration of legal aid in Northern Ireland."
The Committee expressed concern over the lack of detail on the projected establishment of the legal services commission and its running costs. The Committee recommended, therefore, that the Secretary of State should deliver a more detailed and transparent implementation plan in parallel with the draft Order in Council.
I shall now move on to the provision of civil legal services. Under existing legislation, the Law Society administers legal aid to provide advice, assistance and representation to parties in certain civil proceedings, subject to a merits test and, in some cases, a means test. Civil legal aid is available under three schemes at present. The Lord Chancellor’s Department has described those schemes and the means test as follows:
"Legal Advice and Assistance (Green Form Scheme)
Legal advice and assistance, otherwise known as the Green Form Scheme, is intended to cover preliminary advice and assistance from a solicitor including advice, writing letters, entering into negotiations, obtaining an opinion and the preparation of a tribunal case."
It continues:
"ABWOR
Assistance by way of representation (ABWOR) covers the preparation and presentation of civil cases in the Magistrates’ Court. These cases include separation, maintenance and paternity proceedings and certain work in respect of children.
Civil legal aid.
The granting of civil legal aid is a matter for the Law Society through the Legal Aid Committee and the Legal Aid Department and is subject to certain statutory criteria."
The draft Order proposes to deliver civil legal services through advice, assistance and representation. Accordingly, the legal services commission will establish and maintain a new fund to provide civil legal services. The Lord Chancellor will pay such sums into the fund as he may determine and may impose conditions on those payments. The fund will be capped.
The legal services commission will prepare a funding code, which will set out the criteria for determining whether civil legal services should be provided in a particular case. That code will also set out the procedures for making applications for funding.
The Committee raised concerns about the level at which the fund will be capped, how that level will be determined and what process will be used to review the cap. Indeed, in the evidence given by the Northern Ireland Association of Citizen’s Advice Bureaux (NIACAB), a strong case was made for the retention of ABWOR as an independent service. The Committee noted that, at present, legal aid is payable in respect of time spent in preparing for a tribunal, but not for any representation at a tribunal. The statistical evidence provided by NIACAB displays the value of representation at tribunals. The Committee supported the extension of representation in tribunals, and noted the recent reforms in Scotland that make civil legal aid available in some situations.
The Committee, therefore, recommended that the Secretary of State should ensure that further quantitative and qualitative research into the need for civil legal services be carried out in advance of the application of any cap to the fund, and that he should consider extending funding to support all clients in preparation for and attendance at tribunals.
There is currently a potential unmet need in the civil legal aid sector. NIACAB deals with approximately 200,000 clients a year. However, the organisation estimates that there is an unmet need of an additional 200,000 clients a year. The Committee agreed that any funding set aside by the legal services commission will have to take account of the needs of the community and voluntary sectors. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State should arrange for further research to be undertaken into the scale of the unmet needs of those sectors and should make appropriate funding arrangements to meet those needs.
The Committee noted the concerns of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which stated that
"the exclusion of election petitions from the range of available civil legal services… would mean that important electoral rights (protected by Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act 1998)) could not be vindicated with the assistance of publicly-funded legal services."
The Committee supported the view of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and recommended therefore that the Secretary of State revise the schedule to the draft Bill and that he make the appropriate amendment.
The legal services commission will prepare a funding code that will set out the criteria for determining whether civil legal services should be provided in any given case. The code will also set out the procedures for making funding applications. The Committee considered the proposed funding code and the set of procedures that will apply to it. Committee members and some witnesses expressed concern about the prioritisation of cases that will be covered by the fund. The Committee would welcome prior consultation on any proposals for the prioritisation of clients in that regard. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State publish the criteria to be used for prioritising clients who seek assistance from the civil legal aid fund.
Under current legislation, criminal legal aid is available to individuals who are charged with an offence, appear before a court or are brought before a court to be dealt with, subject to the applicant’s satisfying the court that he has insufficient means to fund his or her defence and that it is in the interest of justice that he or she should receive legal aid. The draft Order proposes to replace that scheme. Accordingly, the legal services commission will establish and maintain a fund to provide criminal legal services. The Lord Chancellor will pay such sums into the fund as he may determine, and he may impose conditions on those payments. Unlike the civil fund, the criminal fund will not be capped.
The General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland stated in its evidence to the Committee that the level of representation for the client should be determined by the court and not by the commission. It maintained that only the court can take an informed and objective view of the level of representation required in the light of the issues, substance, seriousness and complexity of an individual case. The Committee concurred with the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland in its view that article 30 of the draft Order is wholly restrictive of access to justice. It recommended that the Secretary of State maintain the existing situation whereby the level of representation is administered by the court.
The legal services commission will be required to prepare a criminal defence service code of conduct. It applies to employees of the commission such as salary defenders and employees of any body established and maintained by the commission in the provision of criminal defence services. The code is to be prepared or revised only in consultation with the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and such other bodies or persons as the legal services commission considers appropriate. It must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor may, by Regulation, establish a registration scheme and code of practice. Only firms and individuals that are registered, comply with the code of practice and satisfy quality mechanisms and monitoring will be entitled to provide publicly funded legal services.
The Committee noted evidence from the Law Society of Northern Ireland in which it stated:
"No-one would wish to argue with the proposition that legal services must be of a consistently high quality."
The Committee supports that view; however, it requested further details on the quality standards that will be imposed and on how they will be applied to firms and individuals. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State publish the draft criminal defence service code of conduct and any details on the registration scheme and code of practice before laying the legislation.
The draft Order proposes a statutory basis for conditional fee agreements. They are also known as "no win, no fee" agreements and are intended to allow lawyers and clients to share the risks and possible gains of litigation. The draft Order provides that enforceable conditional fee agreements can be entered into between lawyers and their clients. They cannot be employed in criminal or family proceedings. The legal services commission would not be involved in conditional fee agreements; they are entirely private agreements between lawyers and clients. The Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and others may, by regulation, define the proceedings in which such fees are to be permitted and prescribe their maximum size.
The Committee considered evidence from the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland. The latter stated:
"Conditional fees should not be introduced into Northern Ireland until such time has passed that would allow consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of their use in England and Wales and a study to be made to assess whether they are required in Northern Ireland."
The Committee accepted the need for further research into conditional fee arrangements. It therefore recommended that the Secretary of State arrange for further research into that in advance of their proposed introduction.
The draft Order also provides a statutory basis for litigation funding agreements. They are made between an individual and those who represent a privately established fund — not with the lawyer taking the case, as occurs with conditional fee agreements.
The Lord Chancellor is empowered to make remuneration Orders setting out a range of fees, or mechanisms for calculating fees that the proposed legal services commission will implement and observe when funding criminal legal services and civil legal services. Remuneration Orders could set all-inclusive standard fees, the scales of fees, hourly rates, the rates for preparation and travelling time, and the methods for determining fees in exceptional cases.
The Committee considered a written submission from the Law Society of Northern Ireland which criticised proposals for privately funded litigation arrangements. It made proposals for a publicly funded contingency legal aid fund, which could be administered on a not-for-profit basis. The Committee recognised that there may be some merit in that proposal and urged that it be given further consideration. The Committee recommended that the Secretary of State arrange for further research into the feasibility of establishing a contingency legal aid fund.
Members will be glad to hear me conclude. I can confirm that the Committee recognised that reform of the legal aid system is welcome and overdue. However, it adjudged that the provision of a short consultation period on a draft Order in Council in an important, complex area is wholly inappropriate. The Committee noted that large sections of the Order are, at best, aspirational, and, at worst, lacking in any degree of detail. The absence of a time-bound implementation plan, and heavy reliance on the proposed new legal services commission for the delivery of many facets of the new system, caused the Committee concern.
The Committee would welcome further and extensive consultation with all interested parties before the laying of the Order in Council. Apart from the complexities that I have outlined, it was a piece of cake.

Mr Alban Maginness: This is a good report, rightly and constructively critical of the proposed legislation. I declared to the Committee my interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Bar, and I do so again at the commencement of this address to the Assembly.
The report is balanced and critical, and it is made by people who are not intimately involved in the provision of legal services. They have brought their common sense to the scrutiny of the legislation, as they have judgement that is critical without being destructive. There is a need for a reform of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland. However, the Order is not the way to reform it.
The draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order would be more appropriately named the prevention of access to justice (Northern Ireland) Order. If it is passed into law, many people will be prevented from achieving justice and accessing legal services in Northern Ireland — and I say that without fear of contradiction or the accusation of exaggeration, such is the deficiency of the draft Order.
As I have said, there is a need for reform. The Government, in their consideration, purported to consult with those involved in the provision of legal services. They also had access to the report of the inquiry chaired by Judge David Smyth. That report examined the provision of legal services in Northern Ireland and identified the changes that would have brought significant and helpful reform to the current system.
Over the years, legal aid has been progressively eroded so that ordinary folk do not have access to it. In Northern Ireland, you must be either very rich or very poor to be confident of having access to legal services. For many years, the Government have been cutting back on the threshold that allows ordinary people to have sufficient access to legal aid. You may say that that is too bad and that people should pay for the service. In effect they do pay through their taxes, but they also can, and do, pay for that service by way of contribution, and that is also fair. The Government have created a situation where many ordinary people whose income is not excessive, but does not verge on the poverty threshold, do not have an opportunity to access legal services. That is fundamentally wrong, and the Assembly should oppose it. We can have the best courts and the best legal system in the world, but if they cannot be accessed through legal practitioners, there is no point in having that "Rolls Royce" system of justice.
We must look at the system afresh. We have to frame a new system that takes account of the nature of legal services in Northern Ireland, which is quite different from that in England, Wales and Scotland. Some 90% of legal practitioners here are small businesses with three or fewer members. They are run throughout Northern Ireland, and most people can go to a local solicitor if they wish. However, it is difficult and expensive to embark on litigation because not only do you have to provide the payment for the lawyer of your choice but, in the event of your failure, you also have to pay for the other side’s lawyer. You have to tread warily. Therefore, it is important to have a system that is accessible.
The Bar Council in Northern Ireland is also much more accessible than that of England, which tends to be much more élite and removed from the ordinary punter. The system in Northern Ireland provides much greater accessibility; that is good and should be preserved. The Law Society and the Bar Council have told the Government to preserve what is good and not to impose an English solution on an Irish problem. The Government said that they would not impose a solution. However, the Order shows that the English system is being superimposed upon the system here. If devolution means anything, the Westminster Government should listen to what the Assembly says about the local system. The Order’s proposals do not suit local circumstances.
The "no win, no fee" approach, which is envisaged in that system, would create a new legal culture that I and many others believe would damage the system here. Lawyers would start to cherry-pick cases. They would simply select good cases that they know they would win and would abandon those that they believe would not be successful. That would mean that those with marginal cases, who deserve a chance, would not be given an opportunity. Those who win their cases would pay more to their legal representatives. That is fundamentally wrong.
The Law Society and the Bar Council of Northern Ireland agree that that is wrong. The Assembly should listen to them. The Bar Council proposes a contingent legal aid fund, and that should be considered. The report asks for further research on that. The Ad Hoc Committee wants a local solution to a local problem. The Bar Council and the Law Society have shown us a direction that the Assembly should examine further. A new system is needed — not one based on profits, but one that preserves the basic integrity of the legal service.
Our legal aid bill is not high; it is not as high as in England and Wales. It is on a par, roughly, with the service in Scotland. Legal aid can be kept at a level that does not place an unfair burden on taxpayers in Northern Ireland. The Smyth Report showed that. It examined it carefully, compared it to what happens in other parts of the United Kingdom and came to that conclusion. That is a fact. The Government are undermining a fairly successful system that gives taxpayers good value for their money by trying to introduce a system that can only be described as "justice on the cheap". It will not work. It will cut corners, and it will do a grave disservice to society.
There is a grave danger in permitting the legal services commission effectively to determine the appointment of defence counsel in criminal trials. That will adversely impact on our criminal justice system. I believe, as do the professional bodies and any right-thinking people, that the court should be the arbiter in determining counsel for those involved in criminal trials.
It is wrong for the new body to have that responsibility. A judge is in the right position to make a judgement. He is independent, experienced and skilled and knows the nature of the trial and the criminal offences of which a person is accused. In those circumstances, it is fundamentally wrong and an erosion of human rights not to allow the court to determine that.
The appeal system under article 31 of the Order is, in many ways, so cumbersome and bureaucratic that it will undoubtedly be of no practical use and will further erode the rights of the accused.
Members of this House seek to promote the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government, on justice issues, have been blind to those interests. We have witnessed the Government’s contemptuous rejection of the ‘Report on the Proposal for a Draft Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001’, which was unanimously approved by the Assembly. The Government seem to be totally insensitive to the concerns and needs of the people here as expressed by this House.
I hope that the Government will take more careful note of this report, because this House cares about the fundamental interests and welfare of the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of their religion or political opinion. The Government should, for once, listen to the views of the people here.
Reform is good, but this Order does not constitute reform, and, therefore, it is not good.

Mr Gerry McHugh: I have a particular interest in this because I regularly deal with people who need legal and advice services and am aware of the particular difficulties.
I concur with Alban Maginness. We both sat on the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation and did much work on that report, as the members of the Ad Hoc Committee on the proposed Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 now have. It was with contempt and arrogance that the Government dismissed the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on which I sat, and it seems that this report will receive similar treatment. It is an almost immaterial exercise.
Because our circumstances are entirely different, we want to introduce something here that is different from what England and Wales have. We also want to work on behalf of the people who are most in need, and their situations can be very different from those of people in England and Wales.
The report says that reform is overdue. People often imagine, falsely, that Government reviews will improve things. Unless care is taken, reviews can do more harm than good. Sometimes Government officials push for changes that are contrary to a Bill’s perceived aim and which do not benefit the public. As Alban Maginness said, under the draft Access to Justice Order, which is designed to give access to legal aid, the opposite will happen. Legal aid has been eroded, but many still need it, especially working families and small business owners who cannot defend their position because they cannot risk incurring the costs.
The proposed introduction of a new legal aid scheme by an Order in Council is neither satisfactory nor democratic. Moreover, the consultation process was unsatisfactory. The decisions paper lacked sufficient detail to enable a meaningful assessment. Once the draft Order was made available, inadequate time was given for scrutiny. Although I welcome the Committee’s recommendation for ongoing scrutiny of the Order and the subsequent implementation plan, I will be interested to note the response of the Northern Ireland Office to that proposal.
As is often the case, the draft Order does not deal with the specific circumstances of the Six Counties; it is identical in every material respect to the legislation in England and Wales. The major difference is that the British legislation received full parliamentary scrutiny. The key problems of cost and access to justice that were identified in England and Wales have not been recognised in the Six Counties.
A main proposal of the Order is to transfer administrative responsibility from the Law Society of Northern Ireland to a new body to be called the Legal Services Commission. There is nothing to suggest that that model is the most appropriate one. According to the Law Society, the new body will impose a much higher burden on public funds than does the present scheme. Although the Bar welcomes the proposed Legal Services Commission, it does not accept that its powers, duties and responsibilities will meet the demands or the needs relating to access to justice.
Part III of the Order contains the mechanism that led to the unregulated operation in England of claims management companies such as Claims Direct and the exploitation of litigants, et cetera. There has been widespread concern about the operation of part III of the provisions in England and Wales. The British Government’s solution to the issue of legal aid is primarily driven by cost consideration, as was the case with criminal injuries compensation.
It is our contention that legal aid provision was severely underfunded and that restricted access to legal services arose because of the continual lowering of the threshold below which an applicant could quality for it.
I am also concerned about the lack of independence of the Legal Services Commission, given its relationship with the Lord Chancellor. I welcome the Committee’s proposal that the commission be impartial. In short, I am disappointed that the British Government are imposing a solution for a problem that we believe does not exist.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: At the outset, I express my thanks to the Committee Clerks and to those who assisted the Committee in drawing up the report.
There has been no meaningful consultation. I agree with Alban Maginness that, although the Committee scrutinised the provisions of the Order and heard evidence from experts, its findings will be ignored, as has happened in respect of meaningful consultation on other pieces of legislation.
That is an indictment of the Government’s attitude to consultation because it pours contempt on the meaning of consultation; on this place; and on the Government’s attitude to the people whom we represent.
It is also important to note that not only have the Government shown contempt in the way in which they consulted with the House but they have also shown contempt for the professional bodies with which they should consult and contempt for those people who represent the organisations that use the justice system on a daily basis. After the Committee ordered the publication of the report, it received more information that, unfortunately, could not be included. However, that information must be put on record because it deals with issues that were pertinent to the Committee’s inquiry.
The Committee received a letter from the chief executive of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, Mr John Bailie, which outlines the activities that Government were engaged in during the consultation process. Not only did the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor’s Department give the society an undertaking that a decisions paper would be forwarded to it, but he gave it a commitment on how the consultation process would run, with a view to considering the elements of the decision.
In his letter, Mr Bailie outlines what Mr Lock of the Lord Chancellor’s Department said with regard to his commitments, and it is important that his remarks are placed on record. Mr Lock said:
"I will pay particular attention to the views of the Northern Ireland Assembly. An Order in Council will then be laid before the Westminster Parliament. The reforms I have outlined here are set out in more detail in the Decisions Paper which I am publishing to-day. There will be a further opportunity to comment on the detail of what we propose at that stage. Much of the detail remains to be worked through."
He also said:
"I will be writing shortly to seek agreement to establish working groups to consider some of the key areas which require to be resolved before primary legislation is brought forward."
Mr Bailie informed the Committee in writing that, with the exception of the working group chaired by Judge Smyth, none of Mr Lock’s commitments were realised. If that is the way in which consultation is conducted with professional bodies that could influence the improvement of the legislation, I fear that the Government will ignore the Committee’s report. Mr Bailie also stated that
"a period of some 21 months elapsed before the appearance of the promised Proposal for this Order in Council; the fact that the draft Order remains a framework which does very little other than to give effect to the outline proposals set out in the Decisions Paper, without the detail being provided to facilitate proper consultation; and the fact that very considerable expenditure has already been incurred by the Government in preparing for the implementation of these proposals".
Those remarks show the Government’s attitude to real and meaningful consultation.
Members must address the probable outcome if the draft legislation were endorsed by the House and by Westminster. Given that the draft legislation is vague, we would introduce bad law. It is vague on the big issues; on its purpose and intentions; on what it seeks to reform; on the make-up of the commission that it seeks to establish and the role that it should have; on the capping system that it wishes to implement; and on the code of conduct required to make it effectual. We must send a clear message to Government that, if they are vague on such big issues, they should go back to the drawing board and formulate draft legislation that addresses the access to justice issues that they claim to want to address. The draft legislation would also be bad law because it would hand the Government a blank cheque with which to run the legal system as they wish.
First, we may hear the cry across Ulster "Oh no, not another quango!" with regard to the proposed commission. Another quango is exactly what would be established. Who will carry out that work? The head of that quango would have to be vested with such powers and skills as to overcome the competing sides; I do not believe that such a person exists. The Government have completely failed to come to terms with the underlying issue of alleged abuse of legal aid. By ignoring that abuse, the Government are not properly addressing what they ought to. In recommendation 2 we require that
"The Secretary of State delivers a more detailed, transparent implementation plan in parallel with the draft Order in Council."
That could not be any more important for the Government to consider.
There are important issues regarding the need for legal aid. The information that the Committee was given to work with was equivalent to a grope in the dark. It was sparse, and a lot of it was based on anecdotal evidence. Thus, recommendation 3 reads:
"That the Secretary of State ensures that further quantitative and qualitative research into the need for Civil Legal Services, is carried out in advance of the application of any cap to the fund."
Next, we recommended
"That the Secretary of State considers extending funding to support all clients in preparation for and attendance at Tribunals."
We must know exactly what the Government mean by "capping" and the level at which they intend to set it. We also need to know the formula that they intend to devise to address that. They could not produce a formula for us; they merely said that it was a moveable feast for which they must have a certain amount of money because the legal system changes each year. That is not good enough. One could not organise and run any Department in that way, and the legal system should not be run in that vague and unaccountable manner.
Funding must be provided for continued attendance and representation at tribunals. The table on page 114 of the report illustrates that
"independent representation for the public at a tribunal lifts the success rate from 1 in 4 to 1 in 2".
Proper representation gets a true and just result; it is important that we facilitate that representation. Other Members have expressed the fear that representation would be denied to those in need; I agree.
We must address the level of need fairly. None of the information given us by the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux — or any of the other organisations that presented evidence — could quantify the extent of that need. They guessed that it is currently 200,000 cases a year, but it could be as many as 400,000 cases each year. However, that was only a stab in the dark, and adequate research must be carried out to ascertain the level of need. We cannot make legislation, and we cannot recommend, or, indeed, fairly criticise legislation if we are unaware of the facts. As stated in recommendation 7, we need clarity on the criteria used to prioritise cases.
I refer Members to some of the Northern Ireland Court Service’s answers on the code of conduct. During their evidence sessions, I asked Mr Hunter of the Northern Ireland Court Service:
"What will the code of practice mean in real terms?"
Mr Hunter replied:
"I cannot say."
When asked if there were a timescale for the implementation of the code of practice, Mr Hunter went on to say:
"We do not think that the code of practice will be at the top of the agenda."
It is important that that is at the top of the agenda, because the public will then have the confidence to gauge whether the reform will work for the efficiency and effectiveness of a better system.
I take some exception to Alban Maginness’s comments. He said that the right of access to legal aid is being eroded. If the public takes a look at the yearly legal aid bill, they will treat it with great scepticism, as millions of pounds are being spent, and claimed, on legal aid. The profession must be funded, and civil aid has risen by 176% in the past 10 years while criminal aid has risen from £6 million in 1990 to £25 million in this financial year. People will say that that is a heck of a lot of money. To assume that people are not being provided with access to justice is wrong.
There is abuse in the system, and that should be addressed. If it takes £25 million or £55 million to run a fair and transparent legal aid system, the money should be spent. However, we should not say that people cannot access the justice system.
It is also wrong to say that lawyers will cherry-pick cases — some probably will, but many do, and would, give of their time if proper resources were provided to help people in real need. AlbanMaginness is more entitled to criticise a profession from which he comes than I am. However, we must not tar the entire profession with the same brush.
If the House backs the draft Order, we are endorsing a blank cheque based on the exchequer of uncertainty. We must say to the Government, "This is bad law; take it away and consider the issues we have addressed, and attend to the vagaries so as to allow us to have a draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order that is appropriate to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland".

Mr Gregory Campbell: I took a considerable time to introduce the motion, so I do not propose to take anything like as much time now.
I thank those who contributed to the debate. A general trend that ran through the comments reflects the Ad Hoc Committee’s deliberations and the questions that were posed to witnesses. MrAlbanMaginness described our approach to the draft Order as critical, but not destructive. That accurately summarised the Committee’s attitude.
The essential affordability of legal services was referred to and was a continuum throughout the consultation process — such as it was. There is no doubt that the Committee’s overriding concern, which I hope and suspect is shared by the House, was the lack of a comprehensive consultation period. Mr Paisley Jnr spoke about the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor’s Department who said:
"I will pay particular attention to the views of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
Now will be the testing time to see whether that is the case. We await the Government’s response to our representations.
There was a consensus in the Committee on the "no win, no fee" tenet and what it means to the level of representation.
The useful figures that the Committee received from the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux show that the success rate for those who have representation at tribunals is double that of those who do not. That is a clear demonstration of the advantage of having representation. All those issues have been addressed in the report.
I thank Members for their contributions, and I hope that the report will receive unanimous support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the proposal for a Draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, established by resolution on 21 May 2002, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Adjourned at 6.01 pm.